Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aave

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 delete‎. David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aave

[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)

Clearly not meeting WP NCORP; deleted last year at AfD and recreated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aave Protocol; all the sources are or paid, or trivial with no reliable deep coverage. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Software, and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A couple of reasons for why this should be speedily kept, and why the AfD should be quickly closed. I write about all kinds of related topics (Bitcoin City and many others) and am certain that Aave is notable enough. That's why I made sure that academic journal articles and many other sources were added.

Aave is #32 on Coinmarketcap. The top 50 cryptocurrencies on Coinmarketcap.com are certainly notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. This isn't some relatively unknown altcoin that is barely used. In the crypto world, you see Aave's presence a lot. Ask the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptocurrency and they can tell you without a doubt that Aave is notable enough. Might as well delete Dai (cryptocurrency), Uniswap, or other articles with similar levels of notability?
Aave is already on the French Wikipedia (fr:Aave) and the Persian Wikipedia (fa:پروتکل Aave), which were created and edited by different editors familiar with how notable different crypto topics and coins really are. They were also created before the current English Wikipedia article for Aave was created. These are also two of the largest Wikipedias.
The first AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aave Protocol, had only one delete vote, so it was closed as a soft delete. Re-creating the article with sufficient citations is thus a valid option, since the original version apparently didn't have that many sources. Per WP:CONCISE, this is better named as Aave, and most sources refer to it as such without the Protocol part, which was why the article was created as Aave rather than Aave Protocol. The French Wikipedia also has fr:Aave, and it was created before the current English Wikipedia article was.
The sources are not "trivial" as the nominator claims. Multiple peer-reviewed scientific papers are cited, in fact 6+ papers (something that's practically impossible for barely known altcoins), and additional sources cited include TechCrunch, Bloomberg News, and Goldman Sachs Research, not random non-notable crypto blogs. The article does not have any blatantly obviously promotional content either (no awards, no corporate puffery, no corporate leadership fluff, no tabloid sensationalism), since most of it actually looks quite, if not a bit too, technical.
Finally, the AfD nominator is recklessly deleting articles without properly evaluating everything. He's been making dozens of disruptive AfDs and has been disregarding WP:BEFORE and other Wikipedia language versions, and neither has he been properly evaluating sources and notability. Thie nominator's contribution history has nothing but AfD nominations, and the account was created just last year with around 100 edits. To add to the confusion, the nominator's comments are frequently mangled, ungrammatical, and poorly worded. This kind of activity is highly disruptive and inappropriate, so I would suggest that this nomination be quickly closed.

Even if we disregard #5, #1-#4 provide very strong reasons for why this article should be quickly kept.

Newatlascamels (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The “speedy keep” vote is effectively winning the jackpot by raising arguments that should not have been raised. It's classic canvassing too. Let's analyze the sources: Bloomberg, TechCrunch, and other media outlets do not appear to provide reliable coverage, only announcements of launching A, launching B, etc - classic WP Trades. --91.222.32.118 (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources don’t give enough in-depth information to meet NCORP guidelines. There isn’t enough solid coverage to show the topic is notable for Wikipedia --Xrimonciam (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. It is an article about a protocol (software) and WP:NPRODUCT is the relevant criteria. It is covered in-depth by Finnish sources such as Tivi ([1], [2], [3], [4]), Kauppalehti ([5]), Yle ([6]). Plus, peer-reviewed academic journals articles already cited in the article are enough to pass WP:N. Veldsenk (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This book covers Aave in full depth pp. 291–297: Di Maggio, Marco (2024). Blockchain, Crypto and DeFi: Bridging Finance and Technology. Wiley. pp. 291–297. ISBN 9781394275908. Veldsenk (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In-depth journal articles: [7], [8], [9], [10]. Veldsenk (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NSOFTWARE. The subject is discussed in Finnish sources that seem reliable (for example The Finnish Broadcasting Company). One of the journal articles provided by Veldsenk also provides WP:SIGCOV.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not meet WP:GNG as claimed. While it is true that Finnish sources discuss the subject, their coverage is not in-depth enough to establish notability per WP:N. These articles primarily provide routine reporting rather than the significant analysis or independent coverage required. Additionally, Yle, which is cited as a source, does not mention the subject at all, undermining the claim that it contributes to meeting WP:N. Furthermore, mere mention in a book does not equate to in-depth coverage, as WP:GNG requires substantive, independent discussion rather than passing references. The cited academic sources may contribute to notability, but they must be evaluated for their depth and independence, rather than being assumed to be sufficient on their own. --2001:FB1:10A:1E0C:1CE4:1651:6D46:8E1A (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is starting to looking strange and suspicious. Yet another IP hopper with absolutely no Wikipedia editing history, using the same kind of language. The IP's arguments are weak at best. What do you say @Veldsenk: @BusterD: @DesiMoore:? Newatlascamels (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I say the page creator should be discussing the topic and not discussing the contributors to this formal discussion. I say pinging an only procedurally-involved admin deserves better reasons and evidence than given. I say the community trusts AfD closers to properly weight assertions from new and ip editors. I say editors should debate boldly, on the merits. BusterD (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that these Delete votes from IP's look suspicious. The last one only addresses WP:GNG - what about the WP:SOFTWARE and WP:PRODUCT arguments that have been raised?--DesiMoore (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NProduct is pretty much the same thing here + Sustained coverage, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    
    This vote is pretty obvious AI, hence the similarity in language. -- asilvering (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:GNG. The journal articles sent by Veldsenk also passes WP:SIGCOV. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are either routine PR announcements or interviews, so we have nothing independent here. Tivi's [11] and Kauppalehti's [12] articles are essentially the same, indicating they originate from a press release. None of the accessible sources pass the WP:SIRS check, ultimately failing WP:GNG. WP:NSOFTWARE is not a policy and carries no weight here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira The sources are similar because they're by the same author who syndicates them. I doubt that they're from a press release. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I think I missed the author's name while translating the articles. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2025 (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.