The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uniswap[edit]

Uniswap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This software/product fails WP:GNG, Lack WP:SIGCOV. More than that, Earlier I have nominated this page for speedy deletion WP:CSD. Since it has been contested by the creator as well as another user. So, I guess an AfD discussion would be the right way to derive a general consensus. - Hatchens (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Although not plentiful, other notable mentions in sources do exist. The potential might be there, but I'm not sure there is enough to say it is notable and worthy of getting a dedicated article yet. Uniswap is only 2 years old after all. Here are the examples I've found in a quick search: ^{[1] [2] [3] Hidden}_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 05:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In the world of ERC-20 tokens, where half the tokens claim the same applications, I think it would be more encyclopedic for Wikipedia to attempt to cover the individual features instead of covering every single token as if it was a separate company.

  In this case, the defining feature seems to be that Uniswap is is built on "liquidity pools", but we don't have any in-depth coverage of what that even is.

  There is an incentive for each token to prop up itself as the one true solution, and media is apparently not discerning enough to cover the background, instead they do churnalism, re-reporting company-sourced metadata like how this-and-such token was the first to achieve 50k users, or how it was the first to apply for SEC regulation 1.8.42 (not actually a real regulation, just making an argument here).

  Uniswap could mentioned in a sentence on an article on "liquidity pools". If we can't find sufficient coverage for "liquidity pools", I'd prefer Wikipedia did not cover the token at all. Since I think our less-popular cryptocurrency articles are overwhelmingly sourced with churnalist metadata instead of documenting the actual innovations.
  On our page for the steam engine, do we redirect the reader to 50 articles, each sourcing press-releases from 50 different companies on how their steam engine will revolutionize transportation? No. Of course mechanical engineering is not hype-driven to the same degree that cryptocurrency is. But it isn't acceptable for Wikipedia to fall victim to such trends. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ysangkok:Generally agree, although the subject of the article isn’t the Uniswap token, rather the protocol and application as the UNI token is recent and not an inherently requisite part of the Uniswap DEX. In terms of significance the standalone article has merit but there doesn’t seem to be enough notable RS out there. Perhaps merging to another relevant article as a short snippet may make sense though? ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 19:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ysangkok:This article is about the decentralized exchange. Uniswap does have an ERC-20 token but that is not what makes it notable nor is the reason for the article. HocusPocus00 (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Decentralized exchange per Ysangkok's comment. I think just this one sentence from the intro would be a relevant bit of information at the end of the Overview section there:

  Uniswap is estimated to be the largest decentralized exchange and the fourth-biggest cryptocurrency exchange overall by daily trading volume, according to Bloomberg News.

  Short and sweet, doesn't add any undue weight in target article given current state of notable RS on Uniswap and size of target article. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 04:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it stays "the largest decentralized exchange" it may get more coverage then get its own article. Coin (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

• Keep This article appears to be well-supported with reliable sources. I would think that an online encyclopedia is exactly the place where a new financing tool should be listed to provide users with this information - I appreciate the information provided. At worst, I would suggest to merge the content of the article into Decentralized finance, but I am happy with the standalone article.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. Add references by User:Hidden Lemon. gidonb (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. HocusPocus00 (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awesome. Thank you! gidonb (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Uniswap is one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges overall by volume (doing $350 million+ volume per day, nothing to sneeze at), and is the largest decentralized exchange. Many exchanges have dedicated articles. See Binance, Coinbase, OKEx, etc. Uniswap is only a couple of years old and has been already been covered by big news outlets that more than satisfy WP:GNG including Bloomberg and Forbes. HocusPocus00 (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is just a mention. Coin (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article is now generating a decent amount of pageviews as of Dec. 11, 2020. There have been over 100 each of the past couple of days. There is interest in this topic, and I think as this article expands more it could be a great informative benefit for readers. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Pageview_stats Coin (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a comment, not an argument for deletion or non-deletion. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Source check of the current version.

These four are mentions: [1] [2] [3] [4]

The MPRA paper is not peer reviewed. See WP:Articles for deletion/Canegrati's formulae where MPRA was not good enough.

ZDNet coverage about an attack.

And this Bloomberg article.

The best source is Bloomberg. ZDNet is lesser coverage. And the rest is not good enough (mentions and MPRA paper). Coin (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the Wiki policy where the subject of the article must be the main topic of the RS and a RS mentioning the subject is not good enough to be cited in a Wiki article? Are you saying these are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS? If so, I disagree. Each cite goes into Uniswap in detail, even if the main focus of the RS's are about broader topics. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These two are clearly trivial mentions [5] "ParaFi began investing in DeFi in 2018, and its investments include apps like Compound, Aave and Uniswap." [6] "SushiSwap is a Decentralized Finance (DeFi) project created by Chef Nomi based on a UniSwap decentralized exchange (DEX) fork for bootstrapping liquidity."

[7] Just one sentence.

[8] This is like two sentences about Uniswap. Coin (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article talks about a VC who invested in Uniswap and talks about how it works. It's not WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. The second article elaborates on how Uniswap's code can be forked (which was a pretty big deal when it happened). The latter Bloomberg source's name is literally "Crypto Exchange Gets Millions After Copy-Paste of a Rival’s Code". The "rival" they are referencing is Uniswap. I don't see anything wrong with using either of these RS's for the information they provided. HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For establishing notability, in-depth coverage is expected. After that, simple fact-checking citations do not necessarily need to be non-trivial. But this is just a discussion on the notability of Uniswap, see WP:ORGDEPTH for guidelines specifically applicable to Uniswap.

That said, context does make a difference and the only source assessments by Coin that I would disagree with are on the sources regarding SushiSwap. Because SushiSwap is virtually the same thing as Uniswap (and the first and only major instance of a rebranded Uniswap clone), an in-depth discussion on SushiSwap would be literally impossible without focusing directly on the details of Uniswap itself.

The Bloomberg article on SushiSwap, for example delves into how and why it was possible for Uniswap to be copy/pasted and how the event was a sorta wake-up call for DeFi. It would be like saying an in-depth article about Bitcoin Cash doesn't display the notability of Bitcoin. But the rest of the sources mentioned do seem trivial though. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 00:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Decentralized finance. DeFi without Uniswap is almost like Hamlet without the Prince. You could argue for a merge into DeFi. But the largest DEX in the world should be notable on its own. There's also this journal article:
  • Guillermo Angeris et al. (2020-06-19). "An Analysis of Uniswap Markets". Cryptoeconomic Systems Journal.

(Only on Wikipedia can you have unchallenged permastubs on tiny villages nobody has ever heard of. But when you're the biggest entity in a certain category, there's all sorts of pedantic nitpicking as to whether you're truly notable.) Spellcast (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spellcast: One of the contributors to that article is Charlie Noyes from Paradigm, Inc. which invested in Uniswap. Three other contributors are from Gauntlet Networks, which Paradigm invested in.[9] Coin (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here are some additional RS's referencing Uniswap. Some of them are just mentions, and the last one talks about it in some detail. I don't think these all need to go in the main article but it seems evident that Uniswap is notable (Forbes has referenced them already twice this month). HocusPocus00 (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC) ^[1][2][3][reply]
• Keep. The Forbes sources are both from staff writers. The Bloomberg sources are good. There's independent coverage. Article really ought to be subject to a rewrite, but this does not make it non-notable. jp×g 01:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is very promotional and would need a big rewrite, but also the only claims this has to notability are ephemeral. Maybe as time wears on there will be some reason to remember it, but these businesses come and go frequently and the coverage of this one is minimal for what might be expected of something major. FalconK (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There's an entire Bloomberg article devoted to Uniswap, along with several other Bloomberg, Forbes and ZDNet articles that talk about it. Also, what in your opinion comes off as promotional? If something does, that was unintentional. I can reword it. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bloomberg and ZDNet are reliable sources that are accepted for showing notability. Therefore, meets GNG. Perhaps some rewording of the Overview section is in order to make it less promo, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP; it's nowhere near egregious to the level of WP:TNT. Clear pass of our notability guidelines, and that's all that matters here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Various RSes with okay amount of coverage. Don't see problem on this. GeraldWL 17:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: definitely notable, including sources like Bloomberg [10] I was looking for info on Uniswap (as a reader) and the article was helpful. It is disappointing to see it nominated for deletion, when the article is useful and the topic is notable. Aude (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.