Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bithumb

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Bithumb

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Bithumb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only proper articles written about this Bitcoin exchange were written when it was robbed. Wikipedia is not a news site, and a robbery does not warrant notability. Notability therefore not established. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I am ambivalent. Sometimes a news event is notable. So I will think on this. Lightburst (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst:, are you aware of how many hacks have happened over the years? Wikipedia never covers the actual hack in detail (details are almost never released anyway!), so there is not enough content for an article. If you think the subject of exchange hacks is notable, we should just have our own list that would be analogous to that one. One could also cover security issues in general to include stuff like this one. Note that I was employed at Electrum at the time of that issue. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MILL. It's a bitcoin exchange that was hacked. So what? Bearian (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: The article needs some clean up. Nonetheless, it has received some coverage, including its venture to the indian market, its introduction of BTCS, its launch of Bithumb Coin and its partnership program, among others. With these reliable sources, the article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Superastig: those are all PR publication websites that are pay-to-publish and will publish absolutely anything. They are not reliable sources, they are not reputable sources, they cannot be cited! Notability has NOT been demonstrated, I maintain my position that the article must be nuked. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Jang, Hyeji; Han, Sung H.; Kim, Ju Hwan; Kown, Kimin (2020). "Identifying and Improving Usability Problems of Cryptocurrency Exchange Mobile Applications Through Heuristic Evaluation". In Ahram, Tareq; Falcão, Christianne (eds.). Advances in Usability, User Experience, Wearable and Assistive Technology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51828-8_3. ISBN 978-3-030-51827-1. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  2. Park, Jae-hyuk (2020-06-25). "Bithumb IPO plan facing skepticism". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  3. Kim, Chang Yeon; Lee, Kyungho (2018). "Risk Management to Cryptocurrency Exchange and Investors". 2018 International Conference on Platform Technology and Service (PlatCon). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/PlatCon.2018.8472760. ISBN 978-1-5386-4710-3. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  4. Lee, Kyung-min (2020-01-16). "Bithumb dispute taken to Tax Tribunal". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-02-16. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  5. Park, Ga-young (2019-01-17). "Crypto exchange Bithumb scales down on poor market conditions". The Korea Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  6. "Hackers steal Bitcoin funds from Bithumb exchange traders". BBC Online. 2017-07-05. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  7. Hyun-su, Kim (2018-05-16). "Bithumb's Plan to List New Cryptocurrency Faces Backlash". BusinessKorea. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  8. Kim, Cynthia (2017-12-12). Coghill, Kim (ed.). "Bitcoin exchange Bithumb says 'right' regulations in South Korea would boost market". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.

  Sources with quotes

  Jang, Hyeji; Han, Sung H.; Kim, Ju Hwan; Kown, Kimin (2020). "Identifying and Improving Usability Problems of Cryptocurrency Exchange Mobile Applications Through Heuristic Evaluation". In Ahram, Tareq; Falcão, Christianne (eds.). Advances in Usability, User Experience, Wearable and Assistive Technology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51828-8_3. ISBN 978-3-030-51827-1. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The abstract notes: This study aims to discover the usability problem of KDEX and Bithumb. Four experts conducted a heuristic evaluation based on ten heuristic evaluation items. Twenty-six usability problems were found in KDEX and eighteen in Bithumb. The article notes: Bithumb is an exchange started in 2014. It is a large cryptocurrency exchange that has 4.5 million members with a global trading volume of about 1 trillion won per day. The article notes, "Most problems of Bithumb were in structure and shortcut". ... Bithumb has the most problems with the logical composition of the screen." Park, Jae-hyuk (2020-06-25). "Bithumb IPO plan facing skepticism". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The article notes: Bithumb's planned initial public offering (IPO) could face a setback as it has yet to announce details as to how it plans to address some outstanding issues that could prevent it from achieving a successful IPO filing here, mostly related to recent cryptocurrency taxation issues. ... Stock market experts, however, warned that Bithumb's IPO will take a long time and the company may fail to fulfill the strict requirements to become a listed firm. ... Bithumb's governance structure is shrouded in secrecy. According to its regulatory filing, Bithumb Korea's largest shareholder is Bithumb Holdings that had a 74.1 percent stake as of the end of 2019. Kim, Chang Yeon; Lee, Kyungho (2018). "Risk Management to Cryptocurrency Exchange and Investors". 2018 International Conference on Platform Technology and Service (PlatCon). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/PlatCon.2018.8472760. ISBN 978-1-5386-4710-3. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The article notes: Bithumb offers both the security services provided by the exchange and the user's notes at the same time. Users should keep in mind the information about cookie information management, vaccine check before accessing the exchange, and information about fake domain name and texts. Users who are not particularly familiar with security can take primary prevention through these instructions. In addition, Bithumb provides the following security services [7]. Lee, Kyung-min (2020-01-16). "Bithumb dispute taken to Tax Tribunal". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-02-16. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The article notes: Korea's leading cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb filed a complaint with the Tax Tribunal against the National Tax Service (NTS) over what it considers a "groundless" tax the agency imposed on its customers, the company said Friday. The firm claims that the cryptocurrency is not a legally recognized currency and therefore lacks the authorities lack the grounds to impose a tax of any kind. Park, Ga-young (2019-01-17). "Crypto exchange Bithumb scales down on poor market conditions". The Korea Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The article notes: BTC Korea, operator of Korea’s largest cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb, is paring down its workforce as the market is showing no signs of an upturn, according to industry sources on Jan. 17. Once the largest crypto exchanges in the country, Bithumb has retrenched 30 employees, accounting for about 10 percent of its workforce. The company offered retirement packages that included support to help them change jobs. "Hackers steal Bitcoin funds from Bithumb exchange traders". BBC Online. 2017-07-05. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The article notes: One of the world's largest cyber-currency exchanges is under investigation after it acknowledged that one of its employee's PCs had been hacked. South Korea-based Bithumb has said that it believes personal details of more than 30,000 of its customers were stolen as a result. ... Bithumb allows its members to buy and sell the virtual currencies Bitcoin and Ethereum. It is South Korea's biggest cryptocurrency exchange, based on recent trading volumes, and one of the five largest in the world. Hyun-su, Kim (2018-05-16). "Bithumb's Plan to List New Cryptocurrency Faces Backlash". BusinessKorea. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The article notes: Top South Korean cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb has withdrawn its plan to list a new cryptocurrency following a backlash from investors over suspicious business ties. Bithumb announced plans to list a new blockchain platform Popchain (PCH) on its official website on May 15, but it postponed the scheme the next day after media reports that just two accounts owned over 90 percent of all traded tokens, which are also known as Popcoin.</blockquotee> Kim, Cynthia (2017-12-12). Coghill, Kim (ed.). "Bitcoin exchange Bithumb says 'right' regulations in South Korea would boost market". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The article notes: Bithumb has been at the center of the speculative frenzy. With about 70 percent of market share in South Korea, it has been the dominant place that ordinary South Koreans go to buy and sell the virtual currency.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bithumb to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• BBC Online noted about Bithumb in 2017, "It is South Korea's biggest cryptocurrency exchange, based on recent trading volumes, and one of the five largest in the world."

  Reuters noted in 2018, "Bithumb has been at the center of the speculative frenzy. With about 70 percent of market share in South Korea, it has been the dominant place that ordinary South Koreans go to buy and sell the virtual currency."

  The Korea Times noted in 2020, "Bithumb's planned initial public offering (IPO) could face a setback as it has yet to announce details as to how it plans to address some outstanding issues that could prevent it from achieving a successful IPO filing here, mostly related to recent cryptocurrency taxation issues. ... Stock market experts, however, warned that Bithumb's IPO will take a long time and the company may fail to fulfill the strict requirements to become a listed firm."

  A 2020 Springer Nature article that discusses 18 usability issues in Bithumb noted in 2020, "Bithumb is an exchange started in 2014. It is a large cryptocurrency exchange that has 4.5 million members with a global trading volume of about 1 trillion won per day."

  Cunard (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment By now, Cunard well knows the criteria for establishing notability and ref-bombing an AfD with references that fail the criteria in WP:NCORP is annoying and disruptive. Cunard is also aware that "sufficient coverage in WP:RS" is also not accurate since the "coverage" must meet particular criteria. It's quality of coverage, not volume, which we require. Cunard also knows that we require references that are *not* based on company announcements, are more than a *mention-in-passing*, do not rely entirely on material produced by the company and is not just a review of their software but *about the company*. Using Cunard's numbering, (1) fails because it is a mere mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (2) is a speculative piece on whether the company will, or will not, float on an exchange. At best some might consider it a weak reference, relying on a mixture of anonymous sources, emotive language such as "tightened his grip" and "unloaded his shares" and speculation about future plans. On analysis, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (3) is a mere mention in passing and relies on information provided by the company, has no in-depth discussion/opinon about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (4) is a report about the company taking a case against the Korean government, has no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (5) relies entirely on a company announcement of lay-offs, fails WP:ORGIND. (6) is a report based on the company announcing that it had suffered a data breach. Run-of-the-mill reporting, based entirely on the company's report, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. (7) is entirely based on company announcements and unattributed speculation. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Finally, (8) is also based on a company announcement and discusses the bitcoin market and bubble in general, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete totally agree this is WP:MILL the sources are extremely trivial and don't pass WP:GNG or any of the specific ones. Even the ones provided by Cunard. All of which seem to be WP:MILL and trivial topics. None of establishes the topic as being notable. Ref bombing a bunch of trivial unreliable sources doesn't change that. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow substantive discussion of the sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, per GNG. The BBC call the operation the fifth largest in the world, a clear claim of notability, the BBC are renowned for careful journalism. The company are involved in some rather interesting events, including the robbery of their exchange, , by North Korea!? It seems like they were also involved in a scandal which almost led to bitcoin being banned in South Korea. obviously once the BBC have noticed there are dozens of other stories. The Korean times is reliable, Reuters is reliable and the BBC is reliable. PainProf (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@PainProf: the BBC has no way to verify this information, market caps are huge and cannot be seen as evidence of notability. Whatever counts as interesting to you does not warrant notability. We have no guideline claiming that we have a bitcoin exchange becomes notable because it was the fifth largest in 2017. Actually, I can't even find the claim ("fifth largest") in the BBC articles you linked. Can you show me? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"It is South Korea's biggest cryptocurrency exchange, based on recent trading volumes, and one of the five largest in the world." Here It says the BBC have based that off trading volumes which suggests a journalist verified the claim. PainProf (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@PainProf: How would a journalist verify the authenticity of trades performed inside an exchange? It took months before people found out about the fake trades on MtGox. There had been no time for research like that for a news story like this. BBC is mainstream media, it wouldn't be able to verify anything. Note how other non-industry media like the London Review of Books helped Craig Steven Wright claim he is Satoshi. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

If an outlet such as the BBC makes a claim like that you would have to find a more reliable source saying it is not true. Regardless, it is a highly reliable source for notability. BTW in my opinion if there are articles such as this it is better if you include them in the nomination and describe why they are not reliable sources as they are not particularly hard to find, you should list them and describe why each is unreliable. The Reuters article in particular refers to a second scandal... PainProf (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Last I checked Wikipedia doesn't peddle in scandals. If your talking about the Reuters article referenced at the bottom of the AfD, which I assume you are, it isn't even about Bithumb and they are only mentioned briefly in relation to the police raiding them over "alleged" tax evasion. Last time I checked Wikipedia is pretty solid on not peddling in things that were alleged to happen. Especially since according to this follow up article by CoinDesk "No charge of tax evasion was found" and Bithumb paid the taxes without any objection. So, essentially nothing ended up happening outside of the initial scandal. That it was mentioned in Reuters isn't really relevant to that. I think trying to claim that kind of thing proves notability "because Reuters" is another good example of the WP:NOTNEWS standard that you and ToughPig have maligned me for citing. Sources like that, that keep getting pushed by people who just want to keep articles, and the usually passing trivial nature of "scandals" that you seem to think make things notable are exactly what WP:NOTNEWS is talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

We dont second guess RS and question how BBC would have determined something based on an editor's opinion (aka WP:OR. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete This one is easy. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single one of the references in the article or linked to above meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that do. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be notable for the hacking event, which is poorly covered in the article currently, but a huge number of RS as pointed out above meet WP:GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Just GYI, "a huge number of RS" is *not* a criteria in WP:NCORP for establishing notability. Also, *none* of the references above or in the article meet the criteria. Can you point to specific references that you believe meet the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.