Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In job

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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 19:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Job

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

non-notable per WP:CORP, unable to find significant coverage via Google, but tricky due to name. Deunanknute (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so have you looked for references outside Google? DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reasoning behind why I primarily used Google:

The company is a talent recruiter. A large portion of their business is to seek out, and be sought out by potential clients; both talent, and those seeking talent. Since this company must find clients who are neither limited in number, centrally located, nor easy to find, this company must maintain an active presence in the eye of the general public.

If this company is doing so, there should be enough references online (that can be easily found via Google), to establish it's notability. Since this company works with the general public; if it is notable, references would be fairly easy to find in the place where the general public tends to look (Google).

It's direct, but it's just my reasoning, edited for readability. Deunanknute (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (speak) @ 20:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2015 (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.