Fartcoin (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was chosen to be merged for lack of noteworthiness, however the consensus was reached before multiple knowledgeable editors updated the page with over 40 references. Deletion discussion centers around lack of noteworthy sources, where users are not willing to accept sources that are not major media companies. This coin is an example of the ability of AI to relate to humans in an infectious and viral way. The name Fartcoin was conceived by a jailbroken Large Language Model as the ideal meme coin to relate to humans. It plays a major role in the creation of the first ever AI crypto millionaire, in which 2% of the token supply was sent to the crypto wallet of the Truth Terminal AI agent that named the coin. It also has connections to Marc Andreesen as one of the most prolific Venture Capitalists, when Marc sent $50k to the Truth Terminal agent's wallet after seeing it reach viral status on X.com social media site. I request that moderators review the sources shown in the article as there are dozens of mentions in the media landscape about Fartcoin and its encapsulation of the absurd and hyper-speculative nature of crypto. The connection to AI as the ideal meme coin name, followed by its successful capture of human attention and creation of an AI millionare, is noteworthy enough to have its own page. In less than a month it garnered 27,000 pageviews. EveSturwin (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The term notability, as we use it here, carries a very specific meaning that has little to do with noteworthiness. In the AfD, none of the Keep !votes carried any weight in terms of guidelines, other than that of WeirdNAnnoyed, who also advocated for a merge. That's also the case for the appellant's petition here. Owen× ☎ 22:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok I understand. The definition here is different.

  In the original deletion discussion the Fast Company article is recognized as a reliable source.

  Here is another piece of significant coverage independent of the subject:

  https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/21/david-einhorn-says-we-have-reached-the-fartcoin-stage-of-the-market-cycle.html

  In reference to @WeirdNAnnoyed reference to WP:TOOSOON AND @Cinadon36 ask for articles over a period of time, this second article of note may satisfy that requirement given these 2 articles are more than 1 month apart, and therefore may be more than just a flash in the pan. Beyond this there have been several mentions by media and traditional finance professionals outside of the crypto industry, as required by coverage independent of the subject. EveSturwin (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own close. The closer's job is to evaluate consensus, and DRV is for challenging that evaluation and nothing else. It is not "AFD round two". It is not the closing admin's job to evaluate the sources for themselves or to otherwise have an opinion at all in the debate. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I’m a little confused, you’re saying the DRV process only re-evaluates the deletion discussion itself and doesn’t take into account sources shown in the article? How can you make a determination of rejection based on notability guidelines without referencing any of the 40+ sources? EveSturwin (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse nothing in the discussion indicates this should have been a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. As noted in the discussion the article can be improved by reliable truthful sources. We have Fast Company, Fortune, and now a recent CNBC article showing significant coverage over a period greater than 30 days. EveSturwin (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clear, replying to everyone can be seen as WP:BLUDGEONING. SportingFlyer T·C 05:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m sorry, I’m new here if you can’t tell. I’m trying to learn how Wikipedia works. I’m not meaning to badger anyone EveSturwin (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess I assumed this was a healthy discussion and debate about the path forward. EveSturwin (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Sorry, User:EveSturwin, your attempt to spam crypto relies on an insufficiency of sourcing. Non-notability is inherent here. And who the hell is "a knowledgeable person like myself"? Serial (speculates here) 00:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have worked in the industry for several years as an honest contributor to blockchain technology, and I unfortunately know how a lot of these memecoins work. Part of my job at my salaried place of employment is to perform market search in the budding Crypto x AI vertical. And sadly there are many founders that have seen Fartcoin take hold of the market in a way their utility-based products are unable to do. I’ve been following the project since Marc Andreessen sent $50k to an AI this summer. The fact that a token named Fartcoin reached this market cap is both ridiculous and a snapshot of a moment in time. I’m not spamming anything, I’m providing the true context and backstory of an incredible phenomenon that enrages so many people.

  But the most noteworthy pieces are that

  1) A viral AI agent identified this as the ideal meme coin and it somehow took hold in human society. It’s quite incredible. Hedge fund manager Raoul Pal likened it to a virus jumping from birds to humans. That in itself is a snapshot in time.

  2) The donation of this token to an AI agent crypto wallet created the first ever AI that had a net worth over $1M. This in itself is a noteworthy event and there are TechCrunch articles about it, with Fartcoin as the driving factor behind this historical point in time.

  I understand the negative sentiment towards it, but the amount of media attention it has received is larger than any other memecoin this cycle. It is larger than true products with underlying value. It is larger than the company AMC. It is frequently quoted by traditional finance professionals as a sign of outlandish crypto market sentiment. In the time since the article was deleted a large hedge fund manager used it as a headline “we are at the Fartcoin part of the cycle”. The Stocktwits founder coined the term Fear of Missing Fartcoins due to the fact that it outperformed the returns of past 50 years of the stock market in 2 months. High school kids are making their teacher’s salaries in one week from this coin in particular. It is a perfect encapsulation of financial nihilism and hyper-speculative behavior that can be tied to the runaway costs of living in America. It’s a direct result of young Americans not feeling as though they can achieve success in life through traditional methods like obtaining a degree and a job. It is possibly the most fascinating thing I’ve ever seen, and I’ve watched it from day 1.

  I think it’s important for curious individuals to see the full backstory and context which makes it even more intriguing. Otherwise I feel this is a case of citizen censorship based on personal attitudes towards the subject of crypto. Just because you’re personally enraged by a phenomenon doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. You can’t delete something from the history books because you don’t agree with it. I’ve been shocked to see that even the memecoin launched by President Trump was nominated for deletion. That also is a clear demarcation in history of human’s relationship to digital currency and there are people who don’t like it so they nominate it for deletion immediately? I fear Wikipedia has lost my respect and I will no longer spend hours reading up on worldly topics here, for I now know that keyboard warriors can paint history in their own viewpoint. I’m quite disappointed.

  And for the record I never used AI, which someone tried to highlight as a reason to denigrate the validity of this page. EveSturwin (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, we don't do the subject-matter expert thing here. Owen× ☎ 01:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m directly replying to the “who the hell is a knowledgeable person like myself” comment above, that’s all. EveSturwin (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse based on "updated the page with over 40 references". It is not reasonable to ask reviewers to review 40 references. Read WP:Reference bomb. Read WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for pointing me to this. I didn’t realize there was such a thing. My goal was to present the external sources to show the information is portrayed in an unbiased manner. EveSturwin (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close as merge, as the right reading of consensus and of guidelines. DRV is not AFD Round 2. Appellant is bludgeoning the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Are community general sanctions still in place for cryptocurrencies? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are: WP:GS/Crypto (as quickly discovered by going to WP:General sanctions). The wording there isn't terribly accurate - I'd expect us to be protecting at extended-confirmed by default if it was - though to be honest, I wouldn't terribly object to that. The sanction that did pass is shown in full at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. —Cryptic 19:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting I have p-blocked the OP from this page and Fartcoin for the continued bludgeoning, and I question whether they should be allowed to edit in this area at all given the Sanctions Star Mississippi 20:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this could probably just be closed up now.

I am also increasingly of the opinion that DRVs that are set up from the getgo as a re-argument of the AFD should be speedily closed as that is not what DRV is for. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of America (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion with closer. This is unfortunate timing for an RfD as the status quo kept shifting about all over the place. First there was no mention of the Gulf of America at Gulf of Mexico, then there was a mention in the lede and body and a hatnote to Nakhodka Bay, then that mention was removed from the lede and took an amble through various parts of the article at some point resulting in the hatnote being removed, and now Gulf of Mexico#Name actually directs readers to Nakhodka Bay in its text.

The point is – it's not the easiest discussion to evaluate consensus for, but the disambiguate result appears to be a supervote or based about the drafting of a disambiguation page, which in RfDs is standard procedure and is meant to further discussion rather than prejudice the RfD's result. Overturn to keep or no consensus, and refine the redirect to Gulf of Mexico#Name as the vast majority of (later) participants did not express support for disambiguation, instead preferring a conflicting action. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I commend the closer for successfully tackling this politically-charged, highly contentious debate. I see no evidence of a supervote here. You may call the timing for this RfD "unfortunate", but it was also inevitable. We wouldn't be having this debate if it weren't for the recent executive order.
  The calls for deleting the redirect were without P&G basis, and reek of slactivism. The page has received over 40,000 pageviews yesterday alone, and will continue to be one of the most popular search terms in the coming weeks. Sending all those who look for it to a search results page smacks of political spite, rather than encyclopedic integrity and a genuine desire to provide knowledge. Picking one of the two targets and placing a hatnote on the other will likely become an edit battleground for the next while, especially if the primary target is a little-known bay in eastern Russia, rather than the page 40,000 people a day are looking for. By picking WP:NOPRIMARY, Why? I Ask steered clear of the political minefield, and closed the RfD in the only way that avoids any colour of bias. In time, the political dust will settle, and NOPRIMARY will turn into WP:ONEOTHER, but that time is not today. Owen× ☎ 21:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies if this was unclear, but after the addition of a mention to the Gulf of Mexico article, only 1 out of over 30 participants suggested targetting Nakhodka Bay. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Overturn to Relist - In my opinion, the disambiguation page is the right answer, but it had been suggested late in the second listing, and cannot really have been said to have had consensus. (If it is relisted, it is likely to close as No Consensus, in which case someone should boldly change the redirect to a disambiguation page.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds like a rather laborious, roundabout way to do exactly nothing. Why not just jump to the same endpoint, and leave things as they are? Owen× ☎ 21:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I respect you, but I truthfully have no idea why you support this option. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn BADNAC for an admin reclose. Politically contentious areas are not for non-admins, no matter how well intentioned and articulate. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that "may not always be appropriate" means "should never". Why? I Ask (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you care to strike this and indicate you now understand, or should I start an ANI discussion to topic ban you from NACs? Your call. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I just looked at their contribs going back to 2023. I'm only seeing 2 RfD closes, including this one. Normally I don't sweat too much if a newbie closer closes something, due to the other things we have in place (like wp:adminacct), but I think in this case, it might not be a bad idea to gain some more experience before jumping into the more contentious closes. - jc37 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Everytime I interact with you, you always try to go the nuclear option. It is tiring. I said I disagree with you. Not that I would not respect the outcome of this decision. You are welcome to try. But you are also welcome to assume good faith. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per BADNAC. There is no way a non-admin should be closing this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist obvious WP:BADNAC. This discussion falls under the first bulletpoint of BADNAC as it falls within a Contentious Topic. I can think of no topic more contentious than American politics. However, I would question this close even if made by an administrator as there is not consensus to do anything at this point. If anything, consensus to keep was starting to form toward the end, but wasn’t there yet.Frank Anchor 23:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: yes, we all know what NACD and BADNAC say. The question in my mind is, what is to be gained by re-closing or relisting it? Some 60 editors participated in this; no clearer consensus would magically materialize if we gave this another week, and closing it as "no consensus" would just leave the page as a battleground before it comes right back to XfD. This is one of those XfDs that was bound to come to DRV no matter who closed it or how they closed it. Rather than blindly follow policy that would, at best, circuitously lead us to the same result, we should examine the outcome to see if it (a) reflects consensus among P&G-based participants, and (b) is the outcome that best serves the project. Everything else is red tape. Owen× ☎ 23:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In my mind, just because a non-admin gets it right doesn't mean we should let someone who hasn't gained the confidence of the community through a discussion or vote to close contentious topics. I didn't even try to "close" this one to figure out if it needed to be overturned (in the sense of gauging the consensus to see if the decision was correct), it's just obvious that it needs to be left to a trusted member of the community in my mind, and I won't change my mind on that. SportingFlyer T·C 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems we're stuck in what may soon be called an American standoff... Owen× ☎ 00:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing about the "60 editors" is that most of them participated before the executive order was signed, which did rather change things. So it does, in fact, need more time. StAnselm (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Things changed over the course of the discussion. This is a good reason to not relist. A fresh discussion would be preferable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per improper close. There was no consensus for a disambiguation page. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per BADNAC. The revision which created the DAB indicates it was WP:BOLD, not based on consensus—"Why? I Asked"'s closure says that the DAB "stands", when the DAB should not be considered in the first place. I also honestly do not see how "Why?" could have concluded that the consensus was to disambiguate at all (although I am also not an admin). — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 00:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist/Re-Open, per above - Though, "Start Over", might not be a bad idea either, as the "facts on the ground" are apparently shifting as we speak. - jc37 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support a full start-over as opposed to a relist. Things have changed dramatically over the past two weeks. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn BADNAC. Contentious. An inexperienced RfD closer should not be closing something required respected leadership. Also, the closing statement itself is very poor, reading as a supervote, and very far from commanding respect. The discussion contains a lot of unjustified terse "Retarget to Nakhodka Bay", which are ridiculous as no one knowing the obscure fact that part of Nakhodka Bay was once in 1859 labelled Gulf of America would need the redirect to find what they want. This is clearly a bit of Trumpism excitement, and non-experienced non admins should not be jumping in. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please tell me how you would word a closing. This is me genuinely asking to learn. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For a discussion with so many !voting participants, while noting that consensus is not about counting, I would count and classify the main differing camps: Keep, Delete, Disambiguate, Redirect to Nakhodka Bay. I would comment on the validity of !votes in each camp. I would try hard to do this by quoting or paraphrasing recurring statements in the discussion, mainly to avoid possible reading of a Supervote. I would note what proportion of each of the camps gave no or negligible rationale for their !vote.

  I would not personally have closed this because I hold some opinions that I haven’t found in the discussion. Eg that the justification for “delete” includes that is new, and that the Wikipedia search engine works (don’t confuse with “Go”), and that the search reveals no significant coverage on Wikipedia. That last point also speaks against validity of “redirect” !votes. I would also have the urge to point out that the term is a mere mention at the two articles and not justifying a redirect. I find myself leaning to disambiguate.

  I would balk at the red flag term “Budding consensus”. This implies a lack of actual consensus. It suggests “rough consensus”, which is a privilege of admins to call, to stop a nonproductive discussion and impose a somewhat arbitrary result.

  I would avoid writing “the Gulf of America is a reasonable search term for those seeking information on the controversial potential name change” because this requires evidence and I don’t see it being citeable to the discussion.

  On checking Nakhodka Bay, I do not find that the statement “Nakhodka Bay was also known as the Gulf of America for over a hundred years” is a fact.

  I would avoid the wording “This means that the current disambiguation page stands” because it reads an an autocrat’s decree, due to the preceding logic not being strong, and the lack of acknowledgment of many contrary !votes. Maybe the many !votes for “keep”/“delete”/“redirect” we’re not incompatible with “disambiguate”, but you would have to explain that well, noting that the !voters did not.

  I probably would most respect an admin who closed it “no consensus”, because it is not a consensus, and because this is a suitable close for a topic that is in development. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a point of clarification: Nakhodka Bay states that the body of water was named Gulf of America in 1859 and kept that name officially until 1972, which is over a hundred years. I tried to make that clear when rewriting and expanding the article yesterday; apologies if that didn't come through clearly enough. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Was kept, or was ignored until being changed? I suspect dubious transliteration. What is the difference between Amerika and Amerikanka? I think this needs a local, or at least a native Russian speaker, to read over the references. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "залив Америка" literally means "Gulf of America". You can read about it in Пароходо-корвет «Америка» и его командир А. А. Болтин (ISBN 9785041049713). Why? I Ask (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the references in the article are in English. See wikt:Citations:Gulf of America, wikt:Citations:Gulf of Amerika, and wikt:Amerika Bay for more attestations in English spanning this time period. Whether the transliteration was accurate or not, that was the name in English too.

  The name of Американка means "American" (using the suffix -анка).

  I don't know the difference between ignored or kept in this case. It's not like the authorities issued a proclamation each year to affirm the name.

   – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 06:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. This is a pretty clear example of WP:BADNAC #1. I spoke to Why? I Ask on their talk page and they said "equally as many people that opposed the redirect or supported a disambiguation page". The big problem that they failed to take into account was that the discussion radically changed after the publication of the executive order. It is simply not the case that the consensus was that Nakhodka Bay was an "equally valid search term": at least, not the consensus among commenters after January 20. Also, the closer's argument about the "current" disambiguation page was extremely weak. StAnselm (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]