Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-Saxon peoples


 * 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   redirect to Anglo-Saxon. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon peoples

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is redundant with our article Anglo-Saxons. The creator has said that this article is about a different sense of the term "Anglo-Saxon" than the one in that article (see the talk page), but I don't think the demarcation is clear enough for us to have separate articles. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge with Anglo-Saxons leaving a redirect to Anglo-Saxons. I am not clear whether or not this topic passes WP:GNG (I guess it does) but anyway a merge would be beneficial encyclopedically. Thincat (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge The article is not about the ancient Anglo-Saxons that the Anglo-Saxons article is about, but is instead about a common term of reference contemporary peoples who speak the English language or are of ethno-linguistic relation to British peoples, this use of the term has continued long since the ancient Anglo-Saxons dissappeared. Suggest clarification by renaming to Anglo-Saxons peoples (linguistic and ethnic conception). The contemporary meanings section should be merged into that article.--R-41 (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be another way of doing things which I would have no problem with. Thincat (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment There is an overlap here with Anglosphere and indeed English language. There is also the notable term English speaking peoples as used eg by Winston Churchill. I do not think a simple redirect or merge will work because as pointed out this article actually has little to do with Anglo-Saxons or their language, whilst a redirect to Anglosphere would confuse without a lot of explanation that is otiose to that article. As a concept, Anglo-Saxon peoples may be intersting, and notable, enough to bear examination in its own right precisely because it has little to do with them as such. It is probably best understood as a foundation myth and the development of an English national identity. I would prefer to remove from this article the overlap with Anglosphere, simply noting that the term can be used to describe English speaking peoples and directing them to that article, but they are not strictly synonymous. --AJHingston (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - duplicates Anglo-Saxons. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and where words can have different meanings the correct approach is to mention it in the main article.  The article says that "Anglo-Saxon peoples...refer to those peoples who are, or are related to native speakers of the English language."  We already have articles about English people and English-speaking people, so any expansion of the article would be forking.  TFD (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Thincat and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect If there is anything to merge. Not convinced of notability. Mcewan (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Anglo-Saxons. I agree with Thincat that Anglo-Saxons already covers the topic of the multiple meanings of the term Anglo-Saxon and the Anglo-Saxons article itself is about the peoples. On the linguistic side there is greater depth at Anglosphere and English language, including the historical development of the language. On the ethnic end, Ethnic groups in Europe has much more information and context on the British peoples and links to more specialized articles. With multiple meanings, and the linguistic and ethnic aspects well covered in other articles, this article seems redundant. --Mark viking (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Fork. Incorporate the photos if they are needed. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge with Anglo-Saxon. Regardless of the contents of the articles, the Anglo-Saxons were (and in other senses are) people. We don't need two articles with different titles on the same topic, any more than we need "New York Yankees" and "The New York Yankees baseball team."  BigJim707 (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Anglo-Saxon. Nothing worth merging.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect Strange assertions (Celts are the same as Anglo-Saxons? Norman French are Anglo Saxon?  I'd like to see RS sources mmaking such assertions.)  Collect (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Anglo-Saxon its a duplication. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2013 (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.