Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grantsmanship

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 no consensus. There's a complete lack of agreement here on the best way forward with this article, but there's definitely no consensus to delete it - the content appears useful somewhere, whether it's in the form of a transwiki, a merge, a rewrite, or a combination of these. Unfortunately this AfD has not provided a strong pointer in any particular one of those directions. ~ mazca ^talk 22:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grantsmanship

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

Reads like an instruction manual (WP:NOTHOWTO). Yes, AfD is not cleanup, but this has been tagged as "essay" since 2011. Sandstein 20:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTESSAY issues with this article are abundantly clear. The article doesn't get many visits or edits. That said, there are bunch of references which cover Grantsmanship. Its notability seems clear. As the nom mentions, this would definitely be a clean up delete. NickCT (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. This is a nicely written essay that would take a lot of work to convert to an encyclopedic article. The topic is clearly notable, so the only argument for deletion is that it needs to be blown up, per WP:TNT. Outright deletion would be a waste of good material. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, such essays are quite appropriate for transcluding to Wikibooks. Stubifying the article would also be appropriate, but then we'd lose the material. --Mark viking (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (somehow). Rather instructive. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Grant writing, which is a stub, but probably has the more appropriate name for an encyclopedic article on the subject. The length of time a cleanup tag has been unresolved is not relevant to an AfD. The topic is clearly notable and it can certainly be made more encyclopedic. As well as changing the writing style, one could discuss studies on grant writing such as this. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grant writing is only a part of the process. The grantsmanship also involves selection of the subject, planning and executing the scientific project, "selling" the project, reviewing grant applications, etc. Lots of people do it, and there is a lot of literature. Indeed, current version is written very much as a "how to" instruction. However, the subject is notable and has significant potential for development. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2013 (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.