Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government and binding theory

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 keep. I shouldn't have relisted this one...anyways, user consensus shows that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure) SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 18:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government and binding theory

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

Term that seems to be only supported by one source. Turns up very minimal results at best, nothing beyond the Chomsky source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in my experience with the linguistic literature, GB is by far the most common name for the theory (if one can call it that), even among its critics (see Martin Haspelmath's critiques of aprioristic approaches to syntax, for example). There's another name, the Principles and Parameters approach, but I don't think the name is as common as GB. In any case, I would support a merge with Principles and parameters. Kayau (talk · contribs) 04:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep and trout for the nominator for not doing elementary WP:BEFORE (or for misspelling it as "governement" in their search, in which case Chomsky's Pisa lectures are almost the only thing that comes up.). GB was the dominant syntactic framework of the 1980s and early 90s. There've been thousands of published papers elucidating one or another aspect of it, and it has been the main subject of dozens of introductory syntax textbooks. If I recall correctly, Principles and Parameters is its successor theory that came to the fore with the Minimalist program of the mid-90s, and at least at first blush I don't see a good reason for merging. – Uanfala 08:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uanfala: So if there are sources, could you please enlighten me on where they are? Because I did do a WP:BEFORE and didn't find crap. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are quite a few on google books, and I'm sure you'll find some on the open shelves of the syntax section in your local library. – Uanfala 18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly sure P&P and GB are the same framework - the Minimalist Programme abandoned parameters. Kayau (talk · contribs) 18:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I might be wrong then, I've never studied any generative grammar. But for these two articles to be merged (which have been separate for a decade and a half), there ought be a focused discussion and a notice on WT:LING. – Uanfala 18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete As pointed out, a possible merge with Principles and parameters does not require an Afd. I too found decent results via a Gbooks search for the topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:49, 30 June 2017 (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.