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. The label may strike some hearers as inaccurate, but there is sufficient evidence to show that the term exists and is in use. The article may require refinement to substantiate individual assertions with direct citations, but a base of scholarship clearly proves the currency of the term. Debate over retitling for clarity is not best resolved at AfD, but the article's talk page. Having said that, I will re-title the article editorially, adding "(economic model)", to distinguish the article from the actual historical Anglo-Saxon economy, on which Wikipedia might someday have an article. Xoloz (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• Delete. Article is largely unreferenced, and has been for 11 months. Quite possibly represents original research, as a google search reveals that the phrase is not normally used in the sense outlined here (usually refers to the economy of Anglo-Saxon England, ca. 800-1200, not to the modern economy of western Europe and the US). The sources currently cited do not use the phrase. Pastordavid 16:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The term is not commonly used in regards to modern economics and politics. Much of it is indeed OR - I tried to provide a bit better perspective by editing the intro, but deletion is preferable per above. Signature^brendel 20:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure, but note that a Google search for "Anglo-Saxon capitalism" returns 12,000 pages, the first ten of which discuss the subject of this article. Given the varied use of this term, I think it's not a neologism, and not original research. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep. The term is not commonly used in the Anglo-Saxon countries, because they are more aware of their differences than their commonalities. However in other countries it is used to stereotype English-speaking countries. Like most stereotypes, it is inaccurate, and sometimes derogatory (see [1]).There are many terms used: Anglo-saxon model[2], Anglo-saxon economy, Anglo-saxon liberalism [3], Anglo-saxon capitalism[4] and Anglo-saxon reforms[5]. There is currently a fierce debate going on within Europe about future economic direction. For example in France the presidential election was fought over whether or not to have Anglo-saxon reforms. President Sarkozy won with a Anglo-saxon reform agenda [6]. His predecessor, President Chirac, was against the "Anglo-Saxon economic model" [7]. You may notice that Sarkozy's attempts to liberalize the labor markets are currently causing national strikes [8]. Similar debates are also frequent in other European countries such as Germany. Badenoch 21:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete as the article contains original research and synthesis. The term may very well be a neologism. Majoreditor 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a well-established and notable concept in continental Europe, as noted and sourced above. Here's another example of this from the international newspaper, IHT, which is published in Paris: Japan is not suddenly going to become an "Anglo-Saxon" economy. Colonel Warden 22:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Lack of enough citations or enough references is not a criteria for deleting an article: it is reason to improve the article, so do it! No reason to think this is original research: it has had many editors in the 2 and 1/2 years it has existed. Hmains 04:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, according to the policy WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" (emphasis mine). Opportunity was given to source the information, as the article has been tagged with a request for references for 11 months, and none have been forthcoming. Pastordavid (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Unfortunately, most WP articles are not sourced and not cited. Sourcing and citing happens only with the few thousand Featured articles. The rest remain 'as is' until and if someone specifically targets them for deletion. This is a highly selective and highly prejudicial means of maintaining WP. And guess what? WP is not harmed by having such articles, waiting for improvement whenever that happens. Hmains (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very relevant article. Many non-English speaking nations have large Anglo-Saxon communities (i.e. -Israel) which make a very powerful and potent contribution to that nation's culture, political structure and economy. Heathspic 14:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - My reaction to seeing the article title was to expect it to be on the "Economy of Anglo-Saxon England". The references cited above appear to show that the term (however inaccurate) is in use, but the article should be kept a breif one, explaining the term (with citations of usage. In fact the term seems to refer to the economies of countries settled by the British - UK + "old Commonwelath" + USA. It is factually inaccurate to describe SCotland, Eire or Wales as Anglo-Saxon. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As Peterkingironnotes, an excellent illustration that "Anglo-Saxons" and "anglosaxon" does not mean the same to all people(:... And as Baldernoch notes, an illustration of the curse of the lingua franca, as that concept is well-known in non-anglophone countries. I would strongly prefer that it be named AngloSaxon model though, by analogy with Scandinavian model--victor falk (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've put most of the supporting external links mentioned above into the article in the External Links section in a format that would allow them to be easily incorporated into the article as references. I have a neutral stance on the article, but did not want the oft stated "if you care about the article, put the links in there that you tout here" to be thrown about. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anthøny 14:16, 24 November 2007 (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.