Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facebook as a Technological Artefact for Learning

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 speedy deletion (A10). (Non admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook as a Technological Artefact for Learning

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

This article appears to be positing the possible use of Facebook as a teaching tool. The fact that this use is not currently employed, but that the author has done research indicating that it could be used for this purpose consitutes original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with the above, it appears to be original research. Also, WP:NOTESSAY. Delete Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiDan61 & Joseph2302, many thanks for your advice. I do understand that not every sentence in my articles are coming from a reference source. However, all conclusions I have ever made are based on research, data and theories. Would you please provide some examples that you consider as original research? I have no intention to mess around, and have been trying hard to maintain a neutral tone. Yet neutral does not equal to not critical. Thank you. Keep Gytgyt1234 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment @Gytgyt1234: Conclusions based on research are, in themselves, a form of original research. (At Wikipedia, we use the term "synthesis", and it is discussed at WP:SYNTHESIS.) What is needed would be conclusions that are already published in reliable sources, that we as Wikipedia editors can then turn to in our writing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original concept, I can't find any source that refers to or covers the topic. Also, Wikipedia is not a science journal. Esquivalience ^t 02:14, 22 April 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.