Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross culture communication


 * 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cross culture communication

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Redundant. Anshuk (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which article is it redundant with? --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand/rewrite OR merge with Communication - No real reason given for deletion, although the current article isn't much of anything. I think the topic of "Cross culture communication" is notable and worthy of an article or a section in Communication.  Culture actually affects communication to a great extent.  It is not limited to language and language barriers, but also includes gestures, intonation, customs, lack of cultural background information that inhibits communication, and probably many other things. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close No valid reason for deletion given. If something is redundant merge and redirect are also options but without a detailed nomination there's no way to investigate it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. Cross-cultural communication does not appear to duplicate Ethnolinguistics, Anthropological linguistics, or Linguistic anthropology, and although all three have a stake in understanding cross-cultual communication, they are certainly conceptually different.  Certainly the more than nineteen thousand g-scholar hits for "cross cultural communication" is an indication that the term is in common use and the concept studied.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Standard subject. Just needs expansion--there are 511 books with precisely this title in WorldCat. When faced with a very sparse article like this, its wise to search BEFORE nominating. DGG (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep-Subject is notable. No valid reason for deletion given. Rlendog (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2009 (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.