According to sources, a group of Wikipedia editors do not consider nonfungible tokens (NFTs) to be art.

Following discussions on five Wikipedia editors voted against classifying NFTs as art in December, discussion has resumed about whether NFTs can be called art.

One Wikipedia editor said, “Because Wikipedia is not in the business of determining whether or not something is art, it's impossible for them to be the ones to do so. As a result, putting NFTs, which are art or not, in their own list makes things much easier. There's also a separate problem of NFTs' artificial price inflation, although it's not the same.”

Another editor said, “NFTs as a class don’t fit any of Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion as either an article or list – they don’t meet notability guidelines, nor do we have sources giving overview information on them. Even if this weren’t an issue, the only existing sources are by people who buy and trade them (though there is some decent information in here), so anything we could say about NFTs has to be sourced from that. I can’t see any way to write an article on this that wouldn’t just be an advert for specific projects.”

However, the majority of editors said NFTs are not art with most citing their lack of creative design. Some cited artist Andy Warhol’s theory of including mundane objects in art as a reason why NFTs would not be considered art.

One Wikipedia editor said, “Andy Warhol proved that you could make great art by putting mundane objects (and food) together in an artistic setting. A pen, a Brillo box, and some soup cans are not the same thing as NFTs or CryptoKitties.”Another editor said, “NFTs may be creative works but they are most definitely not art. They do not fit any of Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion as either an article or list. What is the “high artistic value” that they are supposed to have? There are no sources that could be used to support this claim.