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. The company may possibly be notable, and I was going to stub this, but on looking at it the article is such a mess of advertising, poor writing and probable COI that it'd be better to re-create it from scratch. Black Kite 20:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daewoo Information Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Company of dubious notability. The entire content of the article seems to be based on an official website, so it's not neutral and tends to read as an advertisment for the company. PC78 (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Surely Daewoo is notable, and some mention of this might be made in its article in chief; but this subsidiary is not independently notable on its own. This is a maker of non-consumer software; their product range compasses business consulting to e-Business, which means that they fit the typical profile of a Wikipedia spammer. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, the spinoff of DIS in 1999 was a big scandal coming as it did just before the dismantling of the Daewood chaebol (corollary: Ken Lay sells off "Enron Consulting" and pockets the cash).[1] The article we have is basically a company brochure, though. --Dhartung | Talk 22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singularity 00:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as SPAM. I don't mean to diss DIS, but choice phrases like "DIS offers a comprehensive range of Services, from business consulting to e-Business" indicate that this article is a frontpiece for the corporate website. --Gavin Collins (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:CORP per [2]. No notable coverage for this IT company. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC). Changing to weak keep based on the source given below, which doesn't seem to be indexed for google, unless I just missed it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as spam and non-notable. Quite obviously some kind of essay, too. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 02:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if the subject is notable, the entire article would have to be fundamentally re-written to make it encyclopedic. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with above, needs complete rewrite for NPOV and no copyvios. But google/lexisnexus search establishes slight notability in English, and there are undoubtedly many more sources in Korean. Just because something is spam for the moment doesn't necessarily make it non-notable. Joshdboz (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Seems to be notable, presumably more so in Korean. Remember that we are here to discuss issues of notability and verifiability, not the quality of the article, as that can be fixed by means other than deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it's just ad copy. WillOakland (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Abundant references that prove notability: http://www.newsworld.co.kr/cont/0608/46.htm 99.229.222.154 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as above source is solid (and "Who's DIS?" is a great header). –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. this is clearly a notable company. If it is kept I'll clean the article up to remove the spammy bits, but I don't have time to do it right now. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2008 (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.