Talk:Rare Pepe

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This page was proposed for deletion by GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) on 16 March 2022.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Sale price[edit]

@Curb Safe Charmer: I'm still not seeing anything on https://metaverse.sothebys.com/natively-digital/lots/pepenopoulos that mentions a $3.6m USD sale price. What am I missing? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Belbury: When I follow that link I see a trading card style image of the frog in the middle, and under it a purple banner which says "Winner: rhincodon" and then the price paid - 3,650,000 USD. While at first look this all seems ridiculous, scrolling up and down using the arrows at the top and bottom of the page takes you to other lots which appear to have sold for extraordinary prices, and this gives some context. A quick Google search returned this, which may be a better reference as WP:SECONDARY. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out my ad blocker hides that purple banner. Secondary source is definitely better here, but I was struggling to find one, thanks for finding it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Against proposed deletion (16 March 2022)[edit]

Rare Pepe draft included more citations that would be considered third party and neutral according to discussion among community contributors on twitter. It's kind of crazy to delete a project that tokenized and curated ownership using Bitcoin blocks, CounterParty platform registered tokens, recorded on Bitcoin blocks, before anyone else had the idea. It's got the best web wallet/explorer to visualize and trade/pull up information on the collection as well. If you wanna see people who know more and have created this monumentally important tokenized ownership + art (tokens are the art) secure on Bitcoin before anyone else was even securing ownership via tokenization over Bitcoin/on Bitcoin blockchain(s) then not the discussion thread here on Twitter. Satoshi0x (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Satoshi0x: As the proposed deletion was objected to, the editor who proposed it has since started a discussion here about whether or not the article should be kept. You'd be best giving your views there, rather than here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Satoshi0x: Oh, and here's a link to the original draft. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you I'm new to voicing a vote around here. Much appreciated! Satoshi0x (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what is this article even about?[edit]

I just found this article and only got confused.

From the lead it's not even really clear what this is. Is this about a group of cryptocurrency projects, one specific project on the CounterParty platform, or the meme (which is not mentioned in the lead at all but predates the crypto projects)? Later on in the lead it's called a "series"? Is this an actual NFT or more of a precursor, since the lead seems to go out of its way to not just call this NFT-based?

And this is being nitpicky, but what is the correct name - Rare Pepe, rare Pepe, RarePepe? Why singular, shouldn't it actually say something like "Rare Pepes are a type of crypto art..."?

Since the article won't be deleted, at least its quality should be improved so it becomes more clear what this even is and why it's important. From my understanding, this is mostly notable for being a historical precursor to modern NFTs, which isn't really reflected in the lead at all. --95.91.212.65 (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People like you are the reason shampoo bottles have instructions. 189.58.250.187 (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive focus on cryptocurrency aspect - rename page[edit]

While there is a means for purchasing Pepes on the blockchain, rare Pepes existed and were quite popular prior to listing as a crypto asset. KnowYourMeme lists the first reference as being on 4Chan in 2014 and spread being in early 2015, predating the first listing of the in 2016. Pepes exist without the crypto/NFT element. This page should be merged with Pepe the Frog or be renamed "Rare Pepe (crypto asset)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesjansson (talk • contribs) 09:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Rare Pepe.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar, external links[edit]

Hi Alexandar Garcia. I reverted your removal of the two external links, as I believe they are pertinent given that the article discusses those websites. I also reverted your tagging of the article {{Cleanup|reason=extremely poor writing in some places (including grammar, spelling, etc.)|date=January 2020}} as I couldn't see any grammar or spelling errors. Can you point those out? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose merging this page into Pepe the Frog. I think the content in this page can easily be explained in the context of the other, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in that page. The previous discussion on deleting this page had no consensus on how to proceed, but it seems that either keeping the article or merging the article were the 2 most popular options. To me it seems the content of this article would be better expanded upon in the Pepe the Frog article than as a standalone, especially considering the large overlap between the 2 articles. Originalcola (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - per WP:NOTMERGE. The overlap comprises the first sentence in the lead, and the paragraph with the heading 'Pepe the Frog' which has the main article template - so not much. 15 of the 16 references would be retained - which would be on top of the 118 references already in the Pepe the Frog article. The 'see also' section of the rare Pepe article has seven entries, all valid in the context of NFTs, which wouldn't seem to sit so comfortably in an article about the meme. Overall, I can't see any problem with this article that needs solving with a merge. They are about different - but related - subjects. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC) T[reply]
I'd argue that the See Also section doesn't really matter when discussing a merger and that most of it doesn't have any relation to the topic of the article. The other NFT projects are only included because they are NFTs and not because of any similarities in topic. The "overlap" consists of the whole topic as a Rare Pepe is literally a Pepe the Frog image. I don't think there's a need for a separate article for this variation per WP:NOPAGE, especially considering that it's notability is derived from it being a variation of Pepe the Frog.

. Originalcola (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]