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 delete. Consensus is this lacks notability as a list. Courcelles (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of women holding multiple British damehoods[edit]

List of women holding multiple British damehoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced and entirely trivial; created as a result of a "listify" vote on a deletion discussion for a category. The article serves no meaningful purpose. Keivan.f^Talk 16:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but add sources, and specify which orders (perhaps as a table, one column per order, so sortable as to which Damehoods they have/had). Perhaps split into living and deceased. This is a clearly defined group of people, and could well be the answer to a reader's question: "Do any women hold more than one title of Dame?", a reasonable question to which the answer is not available elsewhere. The list was created as the outcome of a discussion, so it seems perverse now to delete it. But where is List of men holding multiple British knighthoods? PamD 11:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Something on the lines of User:PamD/dames ... just to illustrate the idea. Needs sortkeys, completion, and sources, but this shows the kind of table which would make the list more informative. PamD 11:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess that receiving multiple knighthoods may concern too many people. Damehood is a little bit more exclusive, multiple damehood even more so. Place Clichy (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If the answer to that question isn't available elsewhere, how does it meet NLIST? JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, where is List of men holding multiple British knighthoods? And let's not turn it into a women vs men issue, because knighthoods are not bestowed upon people casually either. Both knights and dames receive the honour for their service to the country, etc. What I do find bizarre is that the list itself is not really encyclopedic. What is next? List of women or men honored with multiple orders of chivalry in France? It can be replicated for every single country, but what would be the point of this sort of categorization? Keivan.f^Talk 20:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, there are contexts where receiving several times the highest award of a nation is a recognized feat in itself. List of twice Heroes of the Soviet Union comes to mind. Place Clichy (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Celia Homeford, Place Clichy, William Allen Simpson, and Fayenatic london: as participants and closer of the relevant CfD. PamD 12:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. The idea of having this information in a list, instead of a category, is precisely that sources and context can be added. BTW the damehoods themselves should probably be sourced on the individual articles of the recipients, otherwise they would not be mentioned there. Looking at a few of these articles (Mabell Ogilvy, Countess of Airlie, Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone Catherine Tizard), it seems they were mostly put in the defunct Double dames category in the first place by now blocked User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, so I guess there is no help to expect on this front. Place Clichy (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — better as a well-referenced list than a scattershot category. If the complaint is not enough references, why haven't you fixed that problem? Why waste our time complaining about something you could fix?
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing to fix here. It is not my responsibility to improve a list that clearly fails WP:NLIST, which states One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. And I happen to agree with the IP who commented below. The category should not have existed in the first place (because there's no such thing as "double dames") and it should not have been listified because even if references were to be added, they would not be originating from secondary sources that discuss this group of people together solely as recipients of multiple damehoods. Keivan.f^Talk 06:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No one has mentioned the elephant in the room here, which is that this is a complete failure of WP:NLIST (as far as I can find...not a single source, let alone scholarly, discusses this as a set). We routinely delete these sorts of crufty lists all the time. That this one is fairly short is irrelevant; it belongs on some sort of Fandom wiki for royalty. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, the article lacks any citations. Second of all, how WP:VALUABLE could this article possibly be? All but six of those listed were either Queen, Princess or a Peeress and so would almost never have been known by their damehood anyway (nobody ever says "Dame Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon"). Third, their honors are either listed after their names in the lead sentence (such as for Catherine Tizard or Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone) or in a separate article (Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother or Mary of Teck). Anybody who wants to know if a woman held multiple damehoods could simply look at their article. Estar8806 (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't appear to be any reputable sources grouping these specific individuals together.98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It fails the test of Wikipedia:Notability because there should be citations for the topic as a whole, not just the individual entries. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think Estar8806 sums up my feelings pretty much perfectly. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see a strong, valid reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The mere fact that no secondary sources group these women together based on the number of their damehoods is a strong reason to delete. And as Estar8806 pointed out, the majority of women listed are queens, princesses or peeresses, thus, they would never be referred to as "Dame [Name]" to begin with. Keivan.f^Talk 18:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks sources supporting the WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:58, 15 April 2023 (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.