The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 09:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
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)
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)
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. HiddenLemon // talk 04:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Uniswap is estimated to be the largest decentralized exchange and the fourth-biggest cryptocurrency exchange overall by daily trading volume, according to Bloomberg News.
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. HiddenLemon // talk 00:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 09:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
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)
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)
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. HiddenLemon // talk 04:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Uniswap is estimated to be the largest decentralized exchange and the fourth-biggest cryptocurrency exchange overall by daily trading volume, according to Bloomberg News.
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. HiddenLemon // talk 00:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)