Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Balkanic Europe

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Balkanic Europe[edit]

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

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Balkanic Europe and List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Nordic Europe are pointlessly split from the List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe. These regions don't seem to exist within the actual RC hierarchy, and the excessive lists don't do much other than duplicate Wikipedia categorization and provide a WP:OR summary. While at it, a new word ("Balkanic") was invented. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless content fork. -- 202.124.74.31 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe is enough. I do object, however, to calling a count of the various bodies "OR". St Anselm (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a complex count with some 7 variables, so it warrants a source that does the same kind of counting. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename List of Roman Catholic dioceses in the Balkans -- The article dealing with the whole of Europe is so long that even its contents box is difficult to use. The Balkans is a recognised division of Europe and there is no reason why we should not split the European article into a series of sub-continental ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, unless you volunteer to split the entire list by region and make things consistent, keeping just these two would still be wrong. The Nordic list is miniscule and is a subset of the list of dioceses immediately subject to the Holy See. Why not move that list into a separate article, then, isn't that method of sorting also pertinent? Then there's also the issue of the Balkans - a fluctuating geographic division of Europe, and notorious for its badly defined northern border - the only actual majority RC countries in that group are .hr and .si, and both of those could be moved to Central Europe on the basis of that same parameter. It's all pretty much pointless - if you want to make the big list's ToC more manageable, fix that problem then, e.g. by employing different syntax in the lowest-level headings to keep them out of the ToC. I'm going to try and do that now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like the table of contents at List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe now? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and weak keep the first as suggested by Peterkingiron, and;

Weak keep the second. From a functional encyclopaedic perspective, both are marginally useful. Both are lists of Catholic dioceses (plural?) in geographic areas where they share a collective history - one in relation to the development and growth of the Russian Orthodox Church on its doorstep, the other in relation to the spread Protestantism and the subsequent wars they collectively undertook. That said, the lists without contextual explanation are not very useful. I would argue that the second could probably be merged into and redirected to Catholicism in Nordic countries which does provide some context (but needs work). There isn't the same sort of article for the Balkans so I'm a bit at a loss as to what should be done there. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both are simple navigational aids. They were used in the creation of the dioceses as a way that all the dioceses could be created at once. I say that because that's what I created them for. I agree - the lists should be expanded with further discussion - they were a simple navigational aid and there's nothing stopping the list from being more elaborate (or including a map of all the different dioceses), as seen in some of the other lists. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You probably need to review the Wikipedia:Categorization guideline. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, weak keep. Being familiar with both Wikipedia:Categorization and WP:LIST, I think you can have both, per Benkenobi18. In this case, seeing the complex heirarchy as a list is an easy way to see the big picture. A move is in order, if we keep it. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe is not sufficient? Why should Scandinavia and the Balkans have their own little big picture outside the European big picture, but not other European regions? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2012 (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.