Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incruit (2nd nomination)
It is a bit strange that this was reinstated without , but nowadays the low participation in the 2013 AfD may have meant that AfD deletion would have been accompanied by a note about potential . Some sources for basic verification can be found, for example it is one of five Korean sites listed in a https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UH1lCQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA146&dq=%22Incruit%22%20-wikipedia&pg=PA146#v=onepage&q=%22Incruit%22%20-wikipedia&f=false "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  discussion. Nor is notability inherited by providing services to well-known firms. In sum, I see no |evidence of |notability
— User:AllyD, 07:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: :WP:DRV||:WP:REFUND||:WP:RS||:WP:RS||:WP:NCORP (Wikipedia:Deletion policy)