Appy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Notified: The Rambling Man, Video games, Awards, Apps, Lists
Looking at when the was nominated, which was three days after the awards were presented, it definitely seemed like a second year of these were expected but that never happened. And looking at the sources used, most of them come from the Appy Awards website itself. Also don't believe that What Mobile is a reliable source. It just looks too barebones to really be called a Featured List with it just being two paragraphs and a table. GamerPro64 02:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. I think it's possible that this is the best the article can ever be, which is commendable, but I also don't think every topic can qualify for featured status. I don't think this article qualifies for AFD, but the three secondary sources in Daily Telegraph, BBC, and What Mobile are all rather short and not particularly in-depth stories. A Google for "Appy Awards -wikipedia" does not turn up a lot of stuff that could be added, either. I don't think the secondary sourcing is strong enough here. SnowFire (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Frankly, I'm not even sure this passes WP:SUSTAINED or WP:GNG in general. That it should not be featured is a foregone conclusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove I don't think this award passes WP:GNG, since beyond the inaugural event which was itself barely covered by reliable sources, there has been no further significant coverage that indicates notability here (WP:SUSTAINED). I would probably nominate this article for AfD or for a merger to Carphone Warehouse after this FLRC closes. Either way I don't think there's enough material here to make a FL sadly. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't notable, but otherwise keep. This fails SUSTAINED and should be merged to Carphone Warehouse (and thus automatically lose FL), but it is stupid to arbitrarily declare that a list is too "barebones" when it meets the criteria just fine and there is no room for expansion. charlotte 👸🎄 09:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- FLC3 includes "does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article," so I'd say that there's a valid concern here. More generally, some editors would look askance at backdoor removing featured status via merging the article, so having some sort of RFC-ish discussion somewhere is valid before taking action, and doing such a discussion at FLRC seems fine to me. (And to be clear, per my earlier !vote, I don't think the article necessarily "needs" to be merged to lose Featured status. Insufficient sourcing should be a problem for featured status anywhere.) SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]