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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incruit (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)

Non notable company. Was deleted by @The Bushranger: after discussion at AfD in 2013, then restored by @King of Hearts: citing WP:REFUND after an appeal by the company's PR Manager at WP:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_83#incruit, which was rejected on that discussion page. No substantial change has been made to the article since then, and the one source cited no longer verifies. PamD 08:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PamD 08:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. PamD 08:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Not really a startup. I think it might be notable in South Korea, but this is quite iffy. Google results are mostly in Korean so it would be best if someone with knowledge of Korean could take a look at this. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It is a bit strange that this was reinstated without WP:DRV, but nowadays the low participation in the 2013 AfD may have meant that AfD deletion would have been accompanied by a note about potential WP:REFUND. Some sources for basic verification can be found, for example it is one of five Korean sites listed in a "World-wide workforce I: An anatomy of recruiting practices around the globe" book, but that mention does no more than confirm this to be a company going about its business. The article text may be claiming primacy in online job listings (the prose is not entirely clear), but that is unsubstantiated: if it had wider influence I would expect to find WP:RS discussion. Nor is notability inherited by providing services to well-known firms. In sum, I see no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and Korean wiki page is also a stub with little demonstration of notability. PenulisHantu (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:COMPANY. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2020 (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.