Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholarly method

Scholarly method

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article doesn't have an sources which address, or even define the topic "scholarly method". If I google the term I get Wikipedia and its mirrors, and various papers describing various methods which happen to be scholarly. Maybe there are sources available but please find them. Chain Suave (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I tried, don't blame me Chain Suave (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is alternatively titled scholarship. That is the very thing that Wikipedia is all about, and if that's not notable we should all give up and go write blogs instead, or else change our definition of notable. Whole books are written on the subject: Scholarship: Its Meaning and Value, Ancient Greek Scholarship, The Politics and Processes of Scholarship, Medieval and Renaissance Scholarship, and Hebrew Scholarship and the Medieval World. Many books are written on scholarship in specific fields; Design and Scholarship, Scholarship in the Digital Age, Scholarship and Christian Faith, and The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in High. In fact, there is so much material out there that one article is just not going to be enough to cover it all. SpinningSpark 23:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those books are about "the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible"? Chain Suave (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do wonder what past account Chain Suave operated under, since Chain Suave is most certainly not a new editor, but scholarship is a WP:Notable topic. Rename the article to "Scholarship" if needed, but WP:AfD is not cleanup. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We already have a Scholarship article. This article therefore should not have "scholarship" bolded in the lead as a WP:Alternative title. Some merging is perhaps in order. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22: No, that's wrong, and merging would be highly inappropriate. The scholarship article is about the financial award, not the activity of scholarly investigation. Bolding the term from an incoming disambiguation link is quite normal. This article could just as well be retitled with a disambiguator such as scholarship (scholarly investigation). SpinningSpark 00:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: Correcting ping. SpinningSpark 00:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the Scholarship article is about. What it is about does not mean that its format cannot be changed and that both of these topics cannot fit in one article or that this article cannot be merged elsewhere. And, no, "scholarship" should not be bolded as the alternative title in this article. It is not the alternative title and it having that title bolded in the introduction can lead readers and editors to think that "scholarship" redirects here. Yes, the "Not to be confused with Scholasticism, Scholarism, or Scholarship" hatnote is currently there, but still. Were you even aware that "scholarship" is its own Wikipedia article when you made your comment above? It does not seem like it. Furthermore, there are no sources in the article using "scholarship" as the alternative title for "scholarly method." What reliable sources do so? Right now, Wikipedia is defining ""scholarship" in two different ways by having "scholarship" as the alternative title in this article. We can ask about the bolding at the WP:Disambiguation talk page if you like. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware, and no it is not an appropriate merge. Two topics with the same name is entirely what disambiguation is about and bolding is part of that. SpinningSpark 01:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As seen here here and here, I queried editors at the WP:Disambiguation talk page and WP:Alternative title talk page about weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Scholarship. The two topics are the same topic. The bolded "scholarship" in the lede as a WP:Alternative title say this. NB. This will involve a lot of work, given the very poor state of Scholarship. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: I'm really at a loss to understand how a merge could ever work here, or why people think they are the same topic. Scholarship is a monetary (or other) award given to students to help them through their studies. Scholarship, in the sense of this article, is the activity of professional specialists gathering, analysing and disseminating information. Please explain how those two topics are in any way related, or what the first, defining sentence of the merged article would be. SpinningSpark 11:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]