Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LinkedIn Answers
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 merge to LinkedIn. MBisanz talk 03:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LinkedIn Answers
seems like a minor service from this company. no refs aside from proof of existence. the website itself seems low key. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Huntley 05:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with LinkedIn – only one independent reference means that it's probably not notable. In the LinkedIn article, possibly add a section titled "LinkedIn Answers" or even simply "Answers", and maybe insert into the "Features" section. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 08:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, looks like after looking through (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), there's a multitude of secondary sources like books and news articles that have significantly looked through the applications of this topic. — Cirt (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, it's only notable in its context as a LinkedIn feature, and since it's a rather short article, I don't see a compelling rationale to leave it as its own article. Merge, in concurrence with Je vous invite à me parler) 10:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but it's also notable in its own right, and there's an argument for not merging, see for example Category:Google services and Category:Google software, it'd be very difficult to merge all those pages into Google article page. — Cirt (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, it's only notable in its context as a LinkedIn feature, and since it's a rather short article, I don't see a compelling rationale to leave it as its own article. Merge, in concurrence with
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per The Anonymouse, above --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:03, 22 November 2012 (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.