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. Wizardman 03:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary (or an atlas). The Britannica entry cited is itself only a short definition. This article is a definition plus OR plus another definition of 'Anglo-American' Doug Weller (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep Anglo-America refers to the United States and Canada since it was once British territory, compared to Latin-America which refers to Mexico, Central America, and South America since it was once Spanish and Portuguese territory. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Although Anglo-American is a term, this is not really an entity that is in any sort of common usage. At best redirect to Anglosphere. --Dhartung | Talk 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Transwiki over to the Wiktionary. This is essentially the U.S.A. and Canada (but not Quebec, pay attention!), only with the addition of some former British colonies in the West Indies like the Bahamas. So, does this mean that Quebec is part of "Latin America", the way the French Guiana would be? How about Nebraska and the rest of the Louisiana Purchase area that was never British territory? Mandsford (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment I need to clarify my previous statement. The United States' and Canada's culture was influenced by the British while Latin America has Spanish and Portuguese influences. Language is too important since the US and Canada mainly speak English while Brazil speaks Portuguese and the rest of Latin America speaks Spanish. Since you mention Quebec, after the French and Indian War, the British won Quebec from the French which means that it became a British territory. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep—it's a stub for a geographic region. Spacepotato (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep - a reasonable and verifiable notion, with plenty of encyclopedic content: Google Books show quite a few ( >1,000 ! ) hits, hence it is very expandable. `'Míkka>t 03:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment It's a bit ironic that you should show a series of links that refer to varied concepts -- 'WASP America' (that is, a part of the population of the USA), literature in England and America, a UK-US political alliance, a geographical area including the USA and Canada, and possibly more. If Wikipedia were a dictionary we would presumably include all these definitions. Are you really suggesting that we have an article including all of this?. And if we limit it to the USA and Canada, we already have an article on each of these, right?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:18, 18 July 2008
Comment It's not restricted just to the US and Canada, Anglo-America includes the English speaking Caribe and North/Central/South America. JC 07:30, 18 July 2008 (PST)
Comment Which just shows that it is an amorphous term, as the Britannica definition and the geography books I've looked at on the web don't include anything except the US and Canada. Doug Weller (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
...and which is just shows that a "mere dicdef" won't do: detailed explanations are required to explain people what this term means, who uses it, in which circumstances and time frame. Since there is at least a dozen of books with "Ango-America" in their titles, surely we can scramble a section or two. `'Míkka>t 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Then you got it yourself, the cultural region is well sourced, the problem to include the remaining English speaking Americas is the lack of web sources, but the term itself includes the current British dependencies. There is a similar problem with Latin America which may or not include the French speaking territories. JC 08:32, 18 July 2008 (PST)
Strong Keep It is a well known cultural region compared to Latin America, this is like you consider to delete Latin America. JC 22:45, 17 July 2008 (PST)
Comment Yes, that is true. It would be a vital entry in a dictionary. I am not disagreeing with that. It means both a geographical and cultural area and Britannica limits it to the USA and Canada (but not including French-Speaking Canada) whereas some editors above want it to include many other places. At one point the article included 14 independent countries and a number of other dependencies, etc. plus 50 cities, 10 urban areas, 10 metropolitan areas (all in tables), photographs of cities, a bit table of racial groups, sections on transportation, English place names, notable Anglo-Americans, languages, etc. As an article, it looks to me like a content fork of North America. Doug Weller (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Actually, if anything, it would be more accurate to say it is a possible content fork of Northern America. Northern America is actually a better term because then you don't have any confusion regarding whether Quebec is included or not, and Greenland is included as well (I found a couple of articles which I referenced to in the Greenland article that said that the United States offered to buy Greenland from Denmark in 1946, but Denmark refused to sell. If the United States had successfully purchased Greenland, then Greenland would now be part of Anglo-America.). However, the term Anglo-America is much more commonly used than Northern America. Older scholars tend to use Anglo-America and younger scholars tend to use Northern America, although they include somewhat different areas. Probably in a couple of decades, Northern America will replace Anglo-America. Keraunos (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2008 (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.
