Talk:InnerSloth/Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * InnerSloth Company Logo.png
 * File has been deleted. Talk is now concluded. Thanks. -KesunyianAyam (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of InnerSloth for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article InnerSloth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/InnerSloth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Right cite (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Tag with no explanation
A user did a drive-by-tagging to the top of this article, adding an "advert" tag with no explanation.

I checked the talk page here, but was unable to find a helpful explanation to explain the user's actions.

Barring no explanation, the tag will eventually be removed.

Thanks, Right cite (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There wasn't anything "drive by" about it. There's no obligation to explain why a template is placed on a page. That said, I said in the changeset comment that it was due to the non-neutral tone and it's not like you gave me time to explain it before you reverted me anyway. My suggestion for now is that you leave it there and read WP:OWNERSHIP. Along with the guidelines for what makes something an advert and non-neutral in tone. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User fails to indicate anything specific about the improvements to the page that are less than neutral in tone. Right cite (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to for removing the inappropriately placed "advert" tag, and especially for your most detailed edit summary. It's nice to know my efforts at article improvement on Wikipedia are appreciated by at least one person. Thanks again, Right cite (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: All offending quotes referenced by the user here, have since all been removed. Right cite (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

All specific issues were addressed. All quotes removed that were complained about days ago. Tag was added back. With no specific reason given as to why. Right cite (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Thorough discussion requires some back and forth addressing and responding to the issues raised by the parties. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page)
 * , thank you, that is most helpful. I'll continue to wait for the time being for specific suggestions here on the article talk page on how to address the user's complaints that the user feels warranted the tag being placed, again, at the top of the article page. Barring specific suggestions on how to address the user's concerns, it would be difficult to improve the page itself without specific feedback. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: Major research and page improvements

 * Update: Many thanks to and  for the idea, suggested at Articles for deletion/InnerSloth, to do more research on the article topic itself. Thanks also to  for help with some of the research. I've improved the article from its prior stub format. Compare stub at time of nomination for deletion, with version of the article post research and improvement, now no longer a stub at all anymore, but rather a pretty good article and worthy of keeping on Wikipedia so as to better serve our readers who may be looking for this information and research on this topic. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Henry Stickmin theme
This is relevant, as it shows use of a theme from one of their games, into another one of their games. It's directly relevant to both the developer, and also to both games themselves. And it shows a direct progression of history of the game releases. Right cite (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it shows a direct progression of history of level releases in Among Us. The most likely to be notable in this article, but still merely a level in Among Us. This should only be included in the Among Us article. It is relevant to Henry Stickmin and Among Us, but is unnotable with respect to the topic of InnerSloth. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's relevant to two different games made by the same developer, and therefore relevant to the developer itself. Right cite (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You consistently make nonsensical arguments in an attempt to add as much information to InnerSloth as possible. This argument makes no sense. It needs to be notable with respect to InnerSloth, not with respect to their two most notable games. If there's an article on Canadian provinces, and a topic happens to be notable with respect to 5 of those provinces, that doesn't justify adding the topic to the article on Canadian provinces.
 * I understand that you want to help add information relevant to a game that I assume you like, and the developers that made them. However, Wikipedia should not show bias to information that is relevant to viral content, despite the interests of the public. Everything should be considered objectively in the same manner that all other content is considered. You clearly have an agenda to add as much content as possible. If you truly want to add as much information as possible, the best way to do it is to make objective arguments, not emotional ones. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not making emotional arguments. Rather, the preponderance of literally thousands of sources shows due amount of sources mentioning this very fact in a discussion of InnerSloth about the Henry Stickmin theme on the Among Us game. Right cite (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, this has nothing to do about whether it should be included in the InnerSloth article. It has no direct notability in respect to InnerSloth. There is a mention of the level in the Among Us article, and if there were a Henry Stickmin article, it would be mentioned there too. But there is no reason for it to be mentioned on the InnerSloth article. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that that is your opinion. Thank you for sharing. Right cite (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Reception section
I suggest that the entire reception section be deleted. The reception of InnerSloth isn't notable enough to have its own section, and is essentially written like an advertisement for InnerSloth. The notability of the reception is similar to that of Free Rice or Mellow Yellow. Additionally, any notability the reception may have seems to be based solely on the fact that their mindset and hardwork paid off when Among Us became viral, and that they happened to be a small group that created a viral game. The notability of InnerSloth is already being heavily debated, I think that the reception is unquestionably too unnotable to have its own section. Even if the section is kept, it should be significantly revised, and likely dramatically reduced. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggesting to delete an entire researched section, in the middle of an ongoing deletion discussion, would indeed support your position, in the very deletion discussion, to do away with the entire article. That is most unfortunate. Right cite (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What you said makes no sense. If a section is unnotable, it should be deleted. It is not unfortunate. And considering the clear controversy (of which clearly leans to the deletion of the article), there seems to be no reason as to why the reception of InnerSloth should get its own section. It seems to be undue weight, of which is merely painting a good, subjective picture of InnerSloth in the midst of its viral game.
 * To recap, if there is no reason as to why the reception of InnerSloth is notable, the section should be deleted. Considering that the topic of the article itself is possibily not notable, it seems very unreasonable to include a section on its reception. If there is a reason as to why this section should be kept, make an objective argument, rather than stating that it's "unfortunate" to delete a researched section. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Section removed. Hopefully it looks more to your liking now and can remain as an article on Wikipedia and not disappear. Right cite (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The removal of the section does not make it more likely for the article to remain, and the removal of the section is not "to my liking". My recommendation to remove the section isn't "of my liking." That's not what Wikipedia is about. The notability of InnerSloth should, and will still be considered objectively. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Right cite (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for InnerSloth
An editor has asked for a deletion review of InnerSloth. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Right cite (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)