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: rename. Apart from the eponymous article, none of the other articles fits really well within the narrow scope of Economics of religion. However the category can still be kept with a wider scope and a new name that represents the wider scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- If we are going to have this at all, it needs a better title. It is probably currently named to match a sociology category, but I so not think such ma match to fit the content. Nevertheless, The attitudes of each religion to economics is so different that I am not convinced of the merits of the category. Is the property portfolio of the Church of England really appropriate contents? If it is why are there no articles on the property and finances of other denominations? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2015 (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 result of the discussion was:Speedied per WP:CFR C2C, as an incorrectly named duplicate of a category that already existed in the correct naming format. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per naming convention for radio stations. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: (could have been a speedy merge) Hugo999 (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2015 (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 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.
