Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural linguistics: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) Creating deletion discussion page for Cultural linguistics. (TW) |
→Cultural linguistics: refs |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:({{Find sources|Cultural linguistics}}) |
:({{Find sources|Cultural linguistics}}) |
||
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]]. [[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]] ([[User talk:Dennis Brown|talk]]) 15:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
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]]. [[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]] ([[User talk:Dennis Brown|talk]]) 15:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' A [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Cultural+Linguistics&ie=utf-8&tbs=bks:1 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? [[User:AllyD|AllyD]] ([[User talk:AllyD|talk]]) 16:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:19, 9 April 2011
- 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)
- 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)