Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rare Pepe

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 no consensus. There is no consensus to delete the text. Whether it should be kept or merged can be discussed editorially. Star Mississippi 02:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Pepe

Rare Pepe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There is very little coverage here of "Rare Pepes" themselves to justify a standalone article, and most sources are used to support auxiliary statements about Pepe the Frog or NFTs in general. (Contested prod). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am surprised at the nomination. If it is about notability, then the sourcing in the article clearly already meets WP:THREE and so no further WP:BEFORE is really needed. The best of the sources in the article, all of which specifically cover rare Pepe cryptoart rather than the Pepe the Frog phenomenon in general are as follows:
  1. longform article in FiveThirtyEight, a respected publication known for fact checking and objectivity
  2. While the Joe Looney interview is on an art blog, it is a serious one with an editorial team, the interviewee is clearly an expert and the content is a critical analysis of why a market for rare Pepes exists.
  3. The second Artnome reference has some 22 paragraphs of strong secondary analysis specifically on rare Pepes, set in the wider context of cryptoart.
  4. This piece at Vice.com, at 13 paragraphs, is substantial, independent coverage, in a long-established magazine.
  5. The article by Jay Hathaway, a writer specialising in internet memes and online culture in DailyDot is a substantial piece of secondary coverage.

  If, however the nominator is saying that the article is WP:TOOSHORT, then there is sufficient unused material in the sources to expand the article beyond a stub. Even if there were not, merging it into Pepe the Frog#Use in cryptocurrency would make more sense than deletion, not that I am suggesting that a merge is necessary here.

  Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pepe the Frog#Use in cryptocurrency More appropriate for a shorter mention there; most of this article talks about it as a concept before NFTs grew into regular discussion, so it's a concept retroactively applied to this in an awkward form, and 10% of the article is just an introduction to the character which we have an article for already. Nate • (chatter) 00:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Pepe the Frog#Use in cryptocurrency per Mrschimpf. The topic overlaps so heavily with the emote itself that there is no clear need for a separate article, especially when the main article is not very long. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:NOTMERGE, merging should be avoided if there is potential for expansion (which there is here), or if both subjects satisfy WP:GNG (which I assert that they do, per my keep !vote above) even if short. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enough coverage to get be ft in a Sundance award-winning documentary ( https://www.ala.org/awardsgrants/node/37520 ), drive over 11M results in google and span a digital Art market estimated to over 3B$

The page should stand and if anything, be enriched. 94.111.62.198 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:"coverage" isn't a Wikipedia criteria for a valid article. Rare Pepe as a crypto art project pre-dates Ethereum based concepts and deserves such credits. Such claims are validated with Bitcoin data (sources are provided in the article). Siphersipher (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2022 (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.