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. postdlf (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural linguistics[edit]

Cultural linguistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Less than notable subject matter. The fact that two of the links point to the book you can buy makes it borderline spam. Was refused Speedy as a common mistake new users make. While a new article, that doesn't give it a pass via WP:N. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A Google Books search turns up a decent number of books covering this term, two in their title. Beyond that, there is possibly the question of whether it stands independent of the related terms as worthy of an article? AllyD (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I run that search by clicking on your link the first two items are two of the books currently cited on the page, and the next 8 are simply books that contain forms of both the word "culture" and "linguistic", per Google's parsing algorithms. Cnilep (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It strikes me that the 3rd one (which Col Warden used in his suggestion below), the 5th one (arguably), and the 8th one (though a reference back to Palmer) are all more substantial than accidental coincidence of two words. As the question mark in my original comment implied, I'm agnostic on whether this is a field deserving of an article in its own right, but the existence of these book references does imply that deletion would be inappropriate, though perhaps a redirect to Ethnolinguistics (as per "Cultural anthropology: an applied perspective") would be appropriate. AllyD (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we reach very similar conclusions: deletion seems unwarranted, but merger somewhere may be appropriate. One problem is deciding where to merge: ethnolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, maybe sociolinguistics, or possibly cognitive linguistics all seem like possibilities. Of course, that question may be discussed beyond AfD. Cnilep (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - having books, especially textbooks and course materials, indicates that sufficient reliable secondary sources exist to create a decent article on this subject. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Palmer 1996 calls Cultural Linguistics a proposed new field; Sharifian and Palmer 2007 call it a new field. This does exist, it seems to differ somewhat from either of its "parent" subdisciplines cognitive linguistics or linguistic anthropology, and at least the contributors to Sharifian and Palmer 2007 claim it as a research specialization. Discussion should probably relate to whether this constitutes notability, and if not, if the information could be merged to cognitive or applied linguistics or ling-anth. Cnilep (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with ethnolinguistics which is the same topic - see Cultural anthropology. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: not quite the same topic, but the differences may be too arcane to matter for an encyclopedia entry. They seem not to matter to that cultural anthropology text, but for example this linguistic anthropology text makes a different division. Cnilep (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:BEFORE A thousand hits on Google Books, and more importantly, a thousand hits on Scholar. My condolences to the nom for having been offered to buy something, but a nomination to delete an article should be based on a little more than being peeved at an Amazon link someone added to an article. Anarchangel (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: did you find 1,000 mentions of the concept discussed on this page, or (similar to AllyD above) was it 1,000 pages that contained the word "cultural" and the word "linguistic" or some variant of either? Cnilep (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2011 (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.