Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lawler


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 04:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

John Lawler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable academic. Apparently best known for creating a program which utterly fails even the general notability guidelines, also fails the academic notability guidelines. I would suggest merging the two, but I don't see how either are notable enough to warrant an article, even if combined. Inanygivenhole (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge or keep. The nominator presents no basis for their belief that Chomskybot "utterly fails" the notability guidelines.  (On the contrary; it seems to be quite notable, with plenty of reliable sources.)  If there is no evidence that Lawler himself is notable (and I haven't had time to do a detailed search myself—has the nominator bothered to do so this time?) I suggest the relevant parts of this article be merged into Chomskybot. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can produce the sources that you say exist for Chomskybot, I'd be more than happy to support Lawler's page redirecting to his bot. I can't find much on Lawler aside from a few university pages that don't do anything to establish notability. Inanygivenhole (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. His citation record seems too slim to support a pass of WP:PROF, but perhaps this is more because of the time in which he published than because of a lack of impact. Regardless, we need evidence of his impact to keep the article, and if not provided in this way then how? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not have citation count in CS to support passing WP:PROF#C1 on that basis and do not see other evidence in the form of awards, chairs, etc. to support a pass on PROF or GNG grounds. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Inanygivenhole -- as elsewhere, your overall somewhat snotty tone concerning a subject you seem to know very little about, distinctly fails to impress. Anyway, what Lawler is probably most known for among linguists is actually his having a fairly high on-line profile during the 1990s, in a way that was not then too common among fully employed academic linguists.  He really is not tied exclusively to the Chomskybot... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the childish personal attack (must I remind you of WP:CIVIL yet again?): the article itself said that he was "best known" for Chomskybot, and I wasn't aware that having a "fairly high on-line profile" made you pass WP:ACADEMIC... Inanygivenhole (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's nice -- you seem to be on some kind of rampage against things peripherally connected with Chomsky (which looks rather suspicious to start with), and then when you choose to adopt a rather snide sneering jeering tone concerning subjects which you seem to know very little about, you are really not showing yourself to best advantage. AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My edit history clearly reflects that I came across the articles while browsing (I was looking at other bots similar to Chomskybot) and then decided that several weren't notable or had questionable notability. Your ludicrous accusations of a "rampage against things peripherally connected with Chomsky" is unfounded and I once again encourage you to be civil and assume good faith. Inanygivenhole (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you have good intentions at some level, but you would have been a lot less annoying if you had been less emphatic and assertive and superior in tone concerning subjects which you seem to have very little knowledge about.... AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you done anything but complain? Inanygivenhole (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No independent evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Weak delete per David Eppstein. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2014 (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.