Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of cities in Israel/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of cities in Israel edit

Featured list removal candidates/List of cities in Israel/archive1

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe it violates the Wikipedia:Article titles policy and also WP:NPOV. An article called "List of cities in Israel" which lists cities outside of Israel is not adhering to the neutral point of view policy. The article's promotion in 2008 was controversial and it took three attempts before it finally was being promoted. The neutrality issues that were raised back then have not been fixed, so it should be demoted. ImTheIP (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - blatant NPOV violation, factually misleading title. nableezy - 19:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - outrageous that this is "featured list", Huldra (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is strikes me that (per the article's talkpage) it's just the title that's the problem here. The list is introduced with a precise definition of the inclusion criteria, to whit: This list includes cities that are in Israel and Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank, an area internationally recognized as Palestinian territory held under military occupation, so unless I'm missing something, this is an RM issue, not a FL issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; from reading through the talk page, it appears that about once a month for the past 5 months someone has proposed moving the list to a more verbose/accurate title, or removing the cities that are within the Palestine Territories, but no consensus has been reached. This nomination appears to just be a continuation of that campaign, but FLRC is not a duplicate venue for handling article/list naming discussions when you're not getting the result you want. --Pres N 20:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the point of this page precisely to handle content issues that cannot be resolved!? Because if it could, wouldn't the industrious Wikipedian just fix the page rather than instigate a referendum for its demotion? ImTheIP (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this page is to determine whether a list meets the FL requirements still. So no, it's not to "handle content issues that cannot be resolved", and in any case, there is no such thing. Articles can be moved if consensus agrees the title is incorrect. This (FLRC) process is not a way to circumvent a failed requested move I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I believe the article breaches the WP:NDESC policy and fails a WP:FL? requirement and thus should not have FL status. I don't think I'm circumventing any process. ImTheIP (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which FL? requirement was that again? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed on the linked to page "... in addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content (particularly naming conventions, ...)" ImTheIP (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it does, doesn't it? It seems that just because community consensus is against your preferred name, you have declared this list to be contrary to policy. Which it clearly is not. So this is a bad faith nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and if consensus exists that the current name is satisfactory, nothing more to discuss. Please note WP:RM is not part of FLC or FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per PresN, this FLRC is just part of a move by certain editors to go around a failed consensus for an article move. I think in terms of NPOV, the article is as clear as humanly possible about the status of some of the cities—and there are no other complaints about the list from the nominator. If other complaints are brought up, as one of the main contributors to the list, I'll gladly address them to the best of my ability. The NPOV issue has been discussed ad nauseam, and there was no consensus for an article move (compromises were rejected as well). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it appears unlikely that a sudden consensus to delist is going to appear, so I'm going to go ahead an close this nomination. If you really feel that the article's title violates the naming guidelines and that the consensus from prior RfCs are wrong... well, I don't know what you can do; you need to find a wider audience to discuss or a better proposed name, but as long as there's no consensus that the current name is against guidelines then this isn't a matter for FLRC. --Pres N 17:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.