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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 20:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural monuments of the Kosovo district[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Short version: We don't want 31 lists (8 have been created so far but there are 23 to go), we don't want potentially even more than 31 lists, we want the two perfectly fine lists that we already have. And we want our stand-alone lists to follow WP:NLIST.

Long version: These duplicative lists contain the following content: The 'cultural monument' entries from the Immovable Cultural Heritage of Exceptional Importance (Serbia) (first-tier official status) mixed together with entries from Immovable Cultural Heritage of Great Importance (Serbia) (second-tier); the resulting pool of entries is then split by administrative division, while isolating only the 'cultural monument' class from the other three classes of protected 'objects'. This list structure exists on the Serbian Wikipedia (sr:Категорија:Непокретна културна добра – entries containing "Списак споменика културе у"), and the author seems to have been copying those articles, perhaps not knowing that this whole topic has already received appropriate encyclopedic treatment here (if only on the list-level). The problems are as follows:

The content is simply duplicative with no additional depth provided. All of these entries are already included in appropriate lists, in a very similar table format. If the author wants to split the long-standing lists by district, he should propose a split, and not create pages that duplicate the scope. But splitting like this would be a bad idea, namely:
The nominated lists fail WP:LISTN, because grouping Serbian cultural heritage objects by administrative division is not supported by secondary sources. There is no meaningful link between the listed status and the district; these are national designations. There are currently eight such lists, but as there are 29 districts (24 functioning districts in Serbia proper and Vojvodina + 5 non-functioning districts making up the claimed province of Kosovo and Metohija) + 2 special-status cities, such continued creations would mean that the content currently covered by two articles is duplicated across 31 lists (that many exist on the Serbian Wikipedia). Going further...
Since the eight nominated pages are limited to 'cultural monuments', but seeing how Serbia's 'Immovable Cultural Heritage' comprises four classes of 'objects': 'cultural monuments', archaeological sites, 'historic landmarks' and 'spatial cultural-historical units', this means that we could get even more such articles for the remaining classes of objects. (Also, if selecting by administrative division, however irrelevant that is, why then also select only a single class of object?) Considering the tempo of these creations, and understanding that this is a part of wholesale copying of an entire parallel list structure from another-language Wikipedia, this is edging toward WP:MASSCREATE.

—Alalch E. 17:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Archaeology, Lists, Kosovo, and Serbia. —Alalch E. 17:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep those that are now in Kosovo in whole or part. Consider adding these to an appropriate list within Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Kosovo or creating individual articles where notability exists. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain:Two of the eight nominated lists consist of places that are in Kosovo. These two are: Cultural monuments of the Kosovo district and Cultural Monuments of Kosovska Mitrovica District. They just repeat what is already included in the two lists I linked above: Immovable Cultural Heritage of Exceptional Importance (Serbia) and Immovable Cultural Heritage of Great Importance (Serbia). This nomination is about duplicative lists, no information would be lost by deleting any of the nominated lists.
Note also that Kosovska Mitrovica District (Serbia) and Kosovo District are not districts of Kosovo (of which there are seven; yes, worth repeating: Kosovo District is not a district of Kosovo). The aforementioned two are the five districts of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, and these five districts were functionally abolished by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo in 1999.
If you advocate keeping those two lists (Cultural monuments of the Kosovo district and Cultural Monuments of Kosovska Mitrovica District) you should be aware that three additional such articles are intended to be made, so there will be five that cover all of the Serbia-legislated defunct five administrative divisions covering the territory of Kosovo. But what about the extant seven districts of Kosovo? Why sideline these districts which are actually functioning since 2000? Shouldn't editors make corresponding 'historical place in x district' lists per the more relevant districts?
The answer is: We don't need any of this. We don't need historical places lists by district for Kosovo or for Serbia. We need historical places lists, but not by district. —Alalch E. 08:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the author of the two above mentioned list articles (1 and 2), I want to explain something. Designated cultural heritage objects in Serbia (which is formally called "Immovable Cultural Heritage") are divided into four types, as already mentioned. Of those four types, "cultural monuments" are by far the most numerous. Any of those objects can by classified as being "of Exceptional Importance" (highest level of protection ~200 objects) or being "of Great Importance" (second highest level of protection ~600 objects). All other objects that are not classified into those two classes, belong to the third (lowest) class of protection (~1800 objects). The two list articles created by myself contain only those objects that belong to the two higher levels of protection. On the other hand, those lists that are proposed for deletion contain all cultural monuments in a district. So, this is not a simple duplication. My two lists contain approximately 800 objects, while those new lists would contain approximately 2600 objects. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, and it's something I remembered at one point, and then looked if there are any third-tier objects in the eight lists, but I couldn't determine that there are any. This is made harder by the fact that the eight lists don't distinguish between the level of protection. In any case the vast majority of entries seem to belong to the top two tiers comprising "Immovable Cultural Heritage". Maybe it would be simpler to start all over, using your list format, and simply copying the table rows from the two lists into per-tier sections for each 'of/in district X' list, as it helps that your lists indicate which is which tier (maybe individual rows could even be transcluded -- demonstration), and then add notable third-tier entries to the bottom, then to look each entry up to see which level of protection it is listed under; certainly the level of protection must be indicated. —Alalch E. 23:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E.: Ah, I think I understand the issue now. You probably checked on of the (new) lists that covers a district in Kosovo. For the territory Kosovo, the Central register only lists those objects that belong to the two higher classes. I don't know why, but the third-tier objects from Kosovo are missing, and it is impossible to find a list on the internet. So, for the Kosovo districts, those new list are indeed the duplicates of my lists. But, I checked Cultural Monuments of Rasina District, and it really lists all the cultural monuments, from all three classed of protection. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's right: I primarily checked the Kosovo District list and only briefly compared several entries from 3-4 other lists but not nearly as thoroughly. That does mean that the duplication reason for this nomination is significantly undermined. Well, I'll have to sleep on this. Thank you very much for the feedback. —Alalch E. 00:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2: If those articles are to be kept, I recommend renaming them into "Immovable Cultural Heritage of the Kosovo district" (and so on), and adding the objects that belong to the three other types of heritage. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be a logical step if keeping. —Alalch E. 23:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I totally agree, let's rename the required articles, please can you give advice how to save the articles? Leto III Atreides (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: Many things have been cleared up:
- The new lists, while partly overlapping with the old lists, are not truly duplicative because there is a third, long, government register of cultural heritage objects (the third tier of protection), and these territorial lists do, in fact, include third-tier cultural heritage objects (some incidentally don't because there are no third-tier listed objects in some of the administrative districts), some of which are notable and should be included in a list. Or lists.
- It doesn't seem worthwhile for me to keep arguing lack of WP:NLIST for using the adm. districts of Serbia (as opposed to something else) as the territorial selection criterion, because so far the participants have not shown an interest in this argument; I could probably talk more about this, but as it's a rather obscure issue, I foresee that basing the deletion case on this will not lead to anything.
- There seems to be agreement that the new lists should differentiate between the tier of protection (which they currently don't). Color coding can be used for the tables, but it's probably better to group entries by tier in separate tables (within a single list).
- There seems to be agreement that the new lists should include all classes of 'objects': 'cultural monuments', archaeological sites, 'historic landmarks' and 'spatial cultural-historical units' (not just the first class). This implies a significant change to the scope of the existing eight lists, and means that the remaining 23 list that will be created should not be created as 'cultural monument' lists, but rather as 'Immovable Cultural Heritage' lists. Existing lists need to be renamed, which is outside of the scope of an AfD; this isn't a contentious matter.
  (Also worth noting: The districts aren't "districts" anymore. Since 2006, they are "administrative districts". Therefore, an example name would be "Immovable Cultural Heritage of Pirot administrative district" or perhaps better "Immovable Cultural Heritage in Pirot administrative district" which more accurately denotes that it's cultural heritage of Serbia that's located in this or that adm. district)
- The issue of inconsistent table formatting wasn't commented on, but I will keep insisting that the formatting be consolidated; possibly entries (table rows) can even even undergo Help:Labeled section transclusion (marked by register number). From my perspective a lot of work needs to be done on the nominated lists, almost evoking WP:TNT, but deletion is not required for the effort to succeed.
- Categorization with respect to Kosovo categories will need to be considered.
This being said, I withdraw the nomination. Pinging Vanjagenije and Leto III Atreides so they see this comment; if you're interested in continuing the conversation / coordinating efforts, ping me on a talk page of your choosing. Sincerely—Alalch E. 20:52, 27 February 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.