Instead of posting REMOVED nominations in the New Tentative List subject, I felt this might be a better place. Furthermore, it can be of some interest to analyze why a nomination is deleted. Examples: Rejected by ICOMOS/IUCN, Combined into a serial nomination, lack of support, etc.

Yes - there are potentially interesting stories about some of these!

Railway Bridge over Yenissey River
This was actually nominated in 2003 and ICOMOS concluded that "the proposed property of the First Railway Bridge over the Yenissei River appears to meet the requirements of outstanding universal value on the basis of criteria ii and iv."
The ICOMOS evaluation notes - "The property was presented as an emergency inscription. Nevertheless, no physical concerns are indicated in the nomination documents. It is understood however that the Ministry of Railways had been considering that possibility of demolishing the bridge as it did not meet the present traffic requirements any longer. Since 1999, the bridge has come under a new administration and it has been listed for protection at the local level. Notwithstanding the requests, the State Party has not provided specific reasons to continue with the emergency inscription."
By 2007 the bridge had indeed indeed demolished!!! So a non-existant site remained on the T List for around 7 years!!!! See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnoyarsk_Bridge
What would have happened if ICOMOS had been less pedantic on this, had investigated the concerns in more detail and recommended inscription? It is difficult to imagine that the bridge would still have been demolished?? Mind you it never actually paid the site a visit so perhpas it conclusion that it "appeared" to have OUV was a bit too easily reached knowing that it wouldn't actually be tested!

The Ancient Plovdiv
Bulgaria had tried with this site as recently as 2006 and withdrew it for reasons never made clear but presumably a negative evaluation - but the site's "nomination history" goes back way beyond this and the site had been withdrawn by Bulgaria in 1983. ICOMOS had then concluded that "it was difficult at this stage to include urban sites on the list for their vernacular architecture and that the problems concerning the types of towns characteristic of the different regions of the World would first have to be clarified."
. I carried out quite a long evaluation of the site's nomination history back in May 2009 here - http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=8&topic=274&pa ge=0#msg1295
It brings out a number of matters I believe including the vary active nature of Bulgaria's involvement in the early years of the scheme (it had 9 sites by 1985 but has not achieved an inscription since then).

San Luis Potosi etc
I visited this site in 2008 and again carried out an investigation into it when writing the review. This identified that in fact no mining had taken place in the town despite Mexico's describing the city's "historical urban-mining set". There was also a major controversy about the continuing mining which was taking place in the mountains around the city. If anyone is interested my review is here - http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/t5163.html

La Constancia Mexicana
We visited this site too in 2008 - but found so little of interest that I never even bothered to complete a review! It had clearly been a major 19th century industrial textile complex but was in serious need of preservation. Apparently it had finally closed as recently as 1991. Its most noteworthy building was a church wthin its entrance square -then being used as an art gallery. Other than this, the site was closed but a security guard offered to take us round - many of the buildings remained but there was relatively little of the machinery left. Beyond the site were areas of worker's housing in typical Mexican 1 story style. No doubt, with the sort of investment put into e.g New Lanark, something could be made of it but would being Mexico's first textile factory be enough - at the time I thought not!! Nevertheless the buildings could provide a fine base for some sort of future use. I have today done some Googling and have discovered that, as recently as Feb 2012 the building had reopened after a major investment in refurbishment. At least one of its uses is to be "la Sede Nacional de las Orquestas Sinfónicas Esperanza Azteca" See - http://www.pueblaonline.com.mx/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=22697:la-constanc ia-mexicana-reabre-sus-puertas&Itemid=126. ("Azteca" is Mexico's second biggest TV comany and appears to be operating an educational foundation). This Youtube video shows the glittering opening and gives a good impression of the reconsturction (skip the speeches!! Part 3 has a concert from the youth orchestra. ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnCqup9sRZU
There is also talk of turning it into a Textile Museum - http://heraldodepuebla.com.mx/2013-02-19/educaci%C3%B3n/la-constancia-mexicana-podr%C 3%ADa-ser-un-museo-textil
If anyone is interested there are many other "hits" to be obtained on "La Constanca Mexicana Puebla" which provide access to a history of the site, the issues concerned with clearing the contamination of the site and further debates about what should happen to it. This (in Spanish) is the best I could find on the history and architecture of the building - http://www.boletin-cnmh.inah.gob.mx/boletin/boletines/3EV20P98.pdf . It would certainly appear that the authorities in Puebla are deteremined to progress with finding uses for, and developing, the site - whether Mexico as a country would ever be likely to bring it back into contention for WH status once its restoration is complete and its future uses decided is another matter.

Parc National du W du Niger (Burkina Faso)
The "interest" here relates to its relationship to the inscription in 1996 of the parts of this trans-boundary Park which are in the country of Niger. This was highly contentious. IUCN saw no OUV at all (and had many reservations regarding management as well) but supported its earlier designation as a World Biosphere Reserve. However, a rearguard action by mainly developing countries assisted by France (presumably in support of La Francophonie"!) beat off opposition by Australia, Canada, Germany and USA (with China/Japan/Malta abstaining) and overturned the IUCN recommendation in a close 2/3rds majority vote. It was noticeable that Niger voted in favour of its own site and Benin was also in favour. Now Benin also has a section of the W Parl on its T List!! At the moment it is still present. Presumably Burkina Faso didn't foresee the same set of circumstances existing to support an extension from itself!! however, it will be interesting to see if its "throwing in of the towel" results in Benin doing the same. And finally, whether 1 or 2 of the 3 owners of this National Park drop out, still seems to call into question the ability of the Niger portion of the site to maintain the required levels of management for a WHS.

Or alternatively how short-sighted the parties were in Russia. If ICOMOS evaluated the property so highly, surely Russia could have went through the procedures and completed a successful nomination in 1-2 more years, no? Who destroys a historic site almost immediately after a relatively positive ICOMOS evaluation? Honestly, I think UNESCO was irrelevant to the stake holders. The UNESCO tag was likely sought (by the state) to prevent the bridges destruction. Yet, what is 1-2 years? If the bridge already demonstrated its OUV, then why couldn't the stake holders be persuaded to halt the demolition of the site?

I suspect that what we have here is an example of "governance" issues in Russia - Kranoyarsk Oblast v Russian State v Ministry of Railways v "Preservationists" v "Developers" etc etc.
The "Emergency" request for inscription has all the hallmarks of a cri de coeur from some of them to ICOMOS/UNESCO for support and assistance - which wasn't forthcoming!!

It will be interesting to see what happens about UK's Forth Railway bridge - this was another example of where the Railway company wasn't, at one time, very happy with its property being put forward! Either personnel changed or arms were twisted or the rail company decided to support a "Scottish" nomination but as we know it did go through.

ICOMOS mentions the lack of maintenance of the bridge and the possible intention to demolish it so was given a pretty clear indication that Russia hadn't got all its ducks in a row - it was probably wise not to take sides! But it is always an issue which ICOMOS/UNESCO face when countries with governance issues put forward problematic sites. Take Bagan. If it had been inscribed back in 1997 would UNESCO/"The World" have had more leverage to prevent/control the inappropriate renovations and developments which have subsequently taken place? Or alternatively has the "carrot" of possible future inscription actually prevented even worse changes?

I wonder about sth else too - on some websites I found the information that the old bridge was dismantled and a more-or-less faithful copy was built instead.

http://www.sayanring.com/tour/view/285/
http://siberiantimes.com/home/sent-to-siberia/dawn-to-dusk-in-krasnoyarsk/

Now obviously this violates the principle of authenticity - but might it be that the authorities in Krasnoyarsk ultimately preferred to have a modernised copy of the bridge instead of constantly repairing the (possibly dangerous and rusted) old one?

Taking it one step further - assuming it had been rebuilt faithfully according to the original plans - in how far would this be any less authentic than e.g. the Ise shrine in Japan, the Kasubi tomb in Uganda or some of the wooden structures in East Asia that burned one or more times?

REMOVED

Le Westhoek, lieu de mémoire et monuments de la Grande Guerre (Belgium)

- There was a update to this nomination this year, in which it is now a transnational nomination. I did notice there are (3) reviews, perhaps these reviews can be transferred to the (2014) nomination.

done!

2 nominations removed by India were nominated by railways ministry

Ancient Buddhist Site, Sarnath, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh (03/07/1998)

This Indian site was previously removed for about a week, it has mysteriously re-appeared.

I assume this nomination will also be removed soon because it's main features are included on the South China Karst (Phase II) inscription.

The Lijiang River Scenic Zone at Guilin (China)

Secondly, Germany's The Wadden Sea (extension) should also be removed. It wasn't discussed much because the honor mostly went to Denmark at this WHC, but there was extended areas included on the German portion as well.

Thirdly, Mexico's extension was also inscribed. Antique cité maya de Calakmul et la Réserve de la biosphere, and therefore should also be removed.

I also noticed the other nominations

1) Bolgar historical-architectural complex
2) Bursa and Cumalikizik Early Ottoman urban and rural settlements
3) Shahr-e Sukhteh

Current #
UNESCO - 1592
whs.org - 1590

Even considering several inscribed properties that remain on tentative lists and double entries, there is still a discrepancy.

Nyika National Park (Malawi) has reappeared on the tentative list.
Mount Apo Natural Park (Philippines) has reappeared on the tentative list.

Both Removed

Kondoa Irangi Rock Paintings (Tanzania)

Classic Karst (Slovenia)

NOT INCLUDED on worldheritagesite.org (present on UNESCO site)

1) "Krzemionki", prehistoric flint mines (Poland) *NEW 2016

2) Großglockner High Alpine Road / Großglockner Hochalpenstraße (Austria) *NEW 2016

3) Extension to the Joint World Heritage Property "Primeval Beech forests of the Carpathians (Slovak Republic and Ukraine) and the Ancient Beech forests of Germany (Germany)" (Austria) *Forgot to add with other extensions?

4) The Great Inka Trail: state transportation system originally named "Qhapac Ñan" (Peru) *Old/Already Inscribed?

5) Silk Road (Kazakhstan) *Completes portion of Silk Road in Kazakhstan?

6) Slender West Lake and Historic Urban Area in Yangzhou (China) *Old/Already Inscribed?

Wiki seems to think these ("Kondoa-Irangi") are UNESCO inscribed. I.e they were in fact a total duplication of the "Kondoa Rock Art" site inscribed in 2006.Does anyone know if that is the case and how/when it occurred? Or have they remained on the T List for over 6 years when they should have been removed following the inscription?

These were there already on the country pages etc, but I had forgotten to refresh the general list.


Added it
Will look into the others