Talk:$Libra cryptocurrency scandal

Proposed merge of $Libra into $LIBRA cryptocurrency scandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge $Libra into $Libra cryptocurrency scandal on the grounds of overlap, and a lack of independent notability of the currency itself - the scandal is the primary topic. Klbrain (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Has no independent notability outside of the controversy Cambalachero (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Merge per WP:OVERLAP Lazesusdasiru (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. charlotte ^👸♥ 19:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Merge. Can't find any sources talking about the coin exclusively (although due to it sharing a name with a proposed token by facebook I struggled to find a lot of sources period).-FusionSub (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose merger into this article, support merger of this article into $Libra (with a potential name change). $Libra is the older article, this article is the fork which should be merged. Giannini Goldman (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

We can merge article histories after the merge. Cambalachero (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose this way is fine then. Giannini Goldman (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Merge - identical topics, and that's a much better title, as the scandal is the story - David Gerard (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Merge - no important difference Braganza (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Merge - Already seems like there is consensus but I thought I'd throw my opinion in as someone who worked on the other article. Moritoriko (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Merge - The cryptocurrency doesn't have a notability on its own. --2x2leax (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Merge - The discussion of the token is inseparable from the scandal itself. 𝗕𝗹𝗲𝗳𝗳 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment - I believe I've copied everything unique from the $Libra article into this article so when this discussion concludes, all that's left to be done is making the redirect. Giannini Goldman (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I've added the redirect and note that copied templates, to acknowledge the editing history, have already been added. Klbrain (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Milei category

The article should be placed in the category Category:Javier Milei, not Category:Presidency of Javier Milei. It involves him as a mere individual, not actions performed in his capacity as the president of the nation (you know, those are things like enforcing policies, proposing bills, giving speeches at institutions, etc). And so far, the impeachment is just an idle dream. There is such a request, yes, but it is just theatrics for the headlines. Any legislator can formulate a request for impeachment, but there is a process in place to filter frivolous requests. As mentioned in the article, there is not enough enough support even to start discussions in the Impeachment Commission (let alone to get it approved in the commission or to pass the requirements needed before this can be considered for voting by the whole congress). The way things are right now, the request for impeachment has no destiny other than the archive. Meaning: there is no impending risk of an impeachment over this, so that can't be used as an argument to use the category of the presidency. If the proposal does get any actual traction, we may reconsider then. Cambalachero (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Hayden Davis into $Libra cryptocurrency scandal

His only claim of notability is the Libra scandal. Per WP:BLP1E such an individual should not have a specific dedicated article. Cambalachero (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose merger, Davis also participated in the $Melania token release prior to $Libra, and has gone on record stating that token was interfered with/sniped as well. It isn't as big of a focus as $Libra is, but is still a big aspect of his independent notability. Proposing a merge based on BLP1E ignores that additional event. 30Four (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Is Hayden Davis "low profile"?

Moving conversation from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Davis to continue without taking over the AfD:

I'm going through the criteria at WP:Who is a low-profile individual and Davis seems to meet all of the criteria for being "high profile" except maybe "eminence"? Even there I think there's a strong argument that he's sought "a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority in a field of research, a sport, a business market, a political sphere, or other area of human endeavor". I realize that's not a policy but it is linked from WP:PUBLICFIGURE which is policy? Giannini Goldman (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that LOWKEY is generally how we determine who is or is not a public figure. To go through each factor:

• Media attention: he's only received any because of the scandal. Using that media attention to establish that an individual is high profile would undermine WP:BLPCRIME because that implies that any person publicly accused of a crime that receives media coverage would be per se high profile.
• Promotional activity: I haven't seen any evidence of that. Indeed, TheStreet piece cited in the article states: "It's a pretty staggering climb to notoriety for Davis, the CEO of Kelsier Ventures who was a relatively unheard of Liberty University graduate in crypto media circles before his LIBRA token attracted so much attention that he had to start making the rounds in damage control interviews."
• Appearances and performances: again, I haven't seen evidence of appearances other than what TheStreet called "damage control interviews".
• Eminence: obviously not.
• Behavior pattern and activity level: this factor basically requires that the subject meet BLP1E, which Davis does not.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)