Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniswap Labs

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 merge‎ to Uniswap. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uniswap Labs

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No reliable sources found for this software developer Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources can be found in traditional media, books, and academic papers. For example, the company has received coverage in Bloomberg News ([1][2][3][4][5][6]), the company has been covered by The Wall Street Journal ([7][8][9][10]), and there are two chapters dedicated to Uniswap in the book Automated Market Makers (published in 2023 by a division of Springer Nature). Sources available span multiple years. The subject of the article meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, even if the current state of the article could use some work. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the product, i.e. Uniswap. Uniswap Labs has been involved in some legal cases but other than most of the coverage is about its DAO, Uniswap. As a company, Uniswap Labs fails WP:NCORP. Veldsenk (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect not notable on its own. Andre🚐 02:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Uniswap. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has sources from The Economist and TechCrunch, so it's notable. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with Uniswap, it is difficult to see where one entity starts and the other ends and it appears, for all intents and purposes, they are one and the same. For example this reference says the company was fined for illegal trading and describes is as a crypto exchange - and this talks about enforcement actions by the SEC. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge things if necessary per WP:NOPAGE. With how closely related the two are, a separate article is not really suitable unless there is a truly compelling reason the two should be separate. I see no such reason. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - seems to meet GNG and NCORP per GeorgiaHuman. I'm not strongly opposed to a merge, since the other article has plenty of room. But strictly speaking, the company and protocol are distinct, and things like the company's finances might seem somewhat inappropriate for the article about the protocol. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Uniswap. I'm willing to grant that both the developer and the exchange are notable. But, as WP:PAGEDECIDE notes, at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times: having one article that covers both the exchange and the developer thereof provides more context for each and covers the topic in an encyclopedic way. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:44, 27 December 2024 (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.