The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Economics is just the science about the economy, including various economic theories, economic terminology, and scholarly professions. Everything these categories however contain isn't about economics (the science) but about the object of science: the economy, which also includes industries, businesses, the national economies, trade and various institutions. For comparison, see Category:Economics and Category:Economy. PanchoS (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems to be a history topic which is misnamed and improperly categorized. Dimadick (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support except perhaps 21st century, which is hardly history yet. However, this needs a lot of purging in some of the earlier centuries: the 6th century leads to 570s then to 573 then to a company established them. for 16th century there were some articles, but I ended off with a company established in 1563. Such threads need upmerging. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, the category only contains one child category, so it is a redundant category layer. (No need to merge to Slovenian people by period, the child category is already in that tree.) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This unusual category categorizes a person on the basis of the status of their spouse. It also (currently) has the effect of placing men (e.g. John Major) in Category:Dames. There may be scope for an article/list about/of couples where both members share this characteristic, but I don't think this is a good way to categorize people - we don't, for example, have categories for athletes whose spouse is also an athlete, actresses who married an actor, politicians married to a convicted criminal etc. There is some background to this category here. DexDor(talk) 08:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are for grouping articles (about similar topics) by their defining characteristics. So, for example, Daphne du Maurier is grouped with other English women novelists. You can't even tell from her article that she fits the knighted couples category and it would not be reasonable for her article to begin "Daphne du Maurier was a member of a knighted couple ...". It would be more defining to categorize her in a people-married-to-army-officers category (not that I'm suggesting that we should create such categories). DexDor(talk) 06:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have created the category so maybe I'm biased. But I suggest that the comparison with athletes doesn't make sense. Getting knighted is something that is conferred to very few people. To have this happen to both spouses is obviously even rarer. You can choose to be an athlete or a politician, and you can also choose to get married to somebody else with that same occupation, but you can't choose whether others think you (or your spouse) should be knighted. Schwede66 09:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We also don't categorize, for example, Nobel laureates married to another Nobel laureate (which is rarer than being in a knighted couple). DexDor(talk) 06:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:[email protected] edited the category page numerous times and should thus be notified of this discussion. Schwede66 09:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- of some historic significance and rarity in (co)incidence. As far as "It also (currently) has the effect of placing men (e.g. John Major) in Category:Dames", I have to check that out. Quis separabit? 12:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checked out categories and John Major is not included in any Dame-related category. Maybe I took some facetiousness too seriously but you never know. Quis separabit? 16:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't see how this category puts John Major in Category:Dames then please do some reading on how the Wikipedia category system works and take a look at the category. DexDor(talk) 06:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the status of a person's spouse is not defining. 92.4.101.67 (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are narrow instances where one might be defined by their spouse (First Lady) but this isn't one of them. This actually seems less defining than the comparisons DexDor is making since knighthood is not randomly given; it tends to be conferred on favored families. No objection to a list. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the couples here had both been knighted before marriage. So this is not limited to couples that were both of a level to be knighted, so I do not think this is in any way a definable group. A list might work, but not a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it might be a meaningful characterization in case we would have articles on couples. But we don't have that. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't even have categories Category:Married people so apparently being married is not notable (in WP parlance, at least). In any event being married to a knight and being a knight doesn't seem to be more than an "oh!" rather than something defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real point to this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly listify. Some of the royalty and higher nobility are likely to get awards such as GCVO for who they are, rather than for what they have done. In contrast the Dames are perhaps more likely to have earned it. This strikes me as a non-notable intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The Panasonic Gobel Awards is a people's choice award for Indonesian TV and they give out a lot of awards. Agnez Mo has won either 8 or 12 of these. Of the 7 articles in the cateogory, 2 don't mention it at all, 1 mentions it in the intro and 4 mention it in passing. That doesn't seem defining. The award winners are already listified in the annual articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then delete -- The main article has only a list of ceremony events, not a list of winners. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Order of the Long Leaf Pine[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The Order of the Long Leaf Pine is given to government employees in North Carolina at their retirement parties if they were on the payroll for 30+ years, per the article. For instance, Julia Elizabeth Smith received the award for 43 years of service at the DMV along wit the the "D.O.T. Road Gang Award" (source, 2/3rds down). But, if you do a really great job, you can get the award for 20 years of service (source, p. 36) or even 6 years (source). Lots and lost of non-employees also receive the award; the LLP Society tried to list all the winners but, due to poor record keeping, it was only able to identify 18,000 of them (source). Even investigative reporters have trouble verifying whether a person had recently received the award (source) raising WP:V issues. Famous North Carolinans like Andy Griffith received the award but so did Oprah who has no obvious connection to the state. (Neither article mentions this award.) These examples don't capture just how capricious this award is though: it's been given to a popular local pharmacist (source), a Burger King franchise owner (source) and a local education advocate (source, p. 18). There is already a list of notable recipients here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The category on the order certain needs to go, as the main article can go in the recipients category as its main article. Any award whose grant is so profligate as described is likely to be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
