Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural linguistics

Cultural linguistics

(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]
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 cognitive or applied linguistics or ling-anth. Cnilep (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]