Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social networking pedagogy


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  03:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Social networking pedagogy

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No refs and nothing verified on the page for many years, with a notability tag since 2012. It looks possible that the topic is notable but the current page reads like an unverified essay and needs WP:TNT JMWt (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Education.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've yet to complete a search on this, and I have to head offline now, but I will note this paper that describes a "social networking pedagogy", but attributes its creation to David Trend and Henry Giroux rather than Thomas Patrick Huston and Hallie DeCatherine Jones. This article also mentions the term, and gives a bit of an overview about applications in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Article text at present will need to be wholly rewritten if kept, so I'm half-inclined to go towards WP:TNT, but I want to complete a more comprehensive search first. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Publicly accessible link to the second article: . Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per nom. Eleven years should have been enough time for adding citations, and as pointed out above, the content would likely need to be thoroughly rewritten and corrected anyway even if suitable references are added. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.