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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of this event is questionable. Schuhpuppe (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Just look at the author's history of disruptive editing, previous article deletion and editing ban. This is just like the editor's other soapboxing and has no place on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears as though with a little work it could be a legitimate article (i.e. "A Seoul court is expected to make a ruling Thursday on the largest private information leakage case involving the online open market site, Auction, owned by eBay. The system was hacked into in February 2008."[1]), but I'm not sure I could do it. I posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea in attempt to find some people who might know more. Location (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea how significant and thus notable this, but if it could it be merged with the other mentioned article about the company which appears to be really only a single line that might work. Also I am sure I read somewhere that because a user is blocked and/ or has bad edits that is no reason to delete other edits or articles by the same user. --Wintonian (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -I can not see how it is notable, but if someone can fix it and move it to a better title, with reliable sources, all the power to you. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The auction site referenced is not identified. As I read this, this case is at the lowest trial court level in South Korea, i.e., not at a court of appeals or supreme court, where it might be setting precedent. This looks to be just another lawsuit; nothing to indicate that it's notability. The poor quality of the article and the use only of references that cannot be readily confirmed aren't grounds for deletion, but they certainly don't help matters. TJRC (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.