Talk:Pump.fun

Deletion status?

What's the deletion status of this article. It looks like AfD review resulted in "Delete", but the article is still up with an AfD notice.

"pump.fun" has achieved notoriety, if not notability. It's basically a platform for scams. John Nagle (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Currently undergoing a second AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pump.fun (2nd nomination). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Headers and scam language

User:Giannini Goldman Please readWikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout A giant block of text is not a great way to organize an article. Sections are preferred. It also looks like some users are trying to remove/ minimize language of scams and controversies from the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiffre01 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

It's standard for company histories to be chronological and broken up chronologically into sections when they get particularly long which this one is not. See Coinbase#History where the entire Coinbase#2012–2019: founding and early years subsection is longer than the entire history section of this article. See also Binance#History, Kraken (company)#History, and Crypto.com#History. For now, I don't think it's necessary here.

There's also no reason to have headers for single or two sentence sections like "Lawsuits" (which only references one lawsuit) and "UK exit". I will revert it to a chronological and we should discuss headers when the history section is longer. This also makes it easier to add to the history section as more

In terms of removing material, I only cut two sentences both of which were unsourced. I'm not opposed to including the sentence about the token's high failure rate now that it's cited (Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic / Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue). The other sentence continues to be unsourced and seems to violate NPOV to me. Giannini Goldman (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Just looking at the article, it's short, but headers make it much easier to read. Coin Base has a longer history section, but it also has sections for insider trading and complaints. Scams and rug pulls are the primary reason this platform is so notorious and need to be highlighted here. The live streaming is fine as part of the history section since it's dead. Chiffre01 (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a perceived notoriety for "scams and rug pulls" requires creating one paragraph section headers. Headers are only really helpful when each section contains multiple paragraphs which is what we see in the examples I provided. Either the site will disappear in a few months or everything in the section now will be under an "Early years" header in few years. There was already quite a bit about how the site's creators say they are motivated by making rug pulls harder and I added a bit on soft rug pulls. If there's more reliably sourced information we should add it but I don't think an unattributed blanket statement is NPOV. Giannini Goldman (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Stats

@Chiffre01 See that you added the sentences detailing stats after they removed the livestream feature here using some crypto sites as a citation which were presumably later removed. The Gizmodo article used as the citation doesn't actually contain those stats and I'm unable to find them outside of crypto news so I went ahead and marked it "failed verification". Do you have a citation we can use for this or should we remove it? Giannini Goldman (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine removing that, the numbers were from an old non-reliable source and I can't find any numbers from reputable ones. Chiffre01 (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)