Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InnerSloth


 * 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 redirect to Among Us. This is officially the worst AFD discussion I have closed in years. There are some participants here who should hang their head in shame. And no, I'm not naming because if you lack self-awareness to know who you are yourself you won't get it anyway. What I get from this discussion apart from a headache is that company notability is not inherited from a product and that the detailed analysis of the sourcing is that there isn't enough about the company that isn't really about the game. I also discarded some late keep votes that failed to add any value as they clearly derived from a "rescue listing" and, if you are going to ask ARS to weigh in when they are well known for taking an inclusionist stance, the arguments they advance really need to be credible source review rather than just stated opinion. (Btw, given how poor this discussion was, don't discuss this with me if you disagree - just take it to DRV. I have had my quota of green coloured text for the week)@ Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

InnerSloth

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Non-notable video game developer failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. In particular, none are significant coverage of the subject. All the sources in the article are about the company's games and not the company, i.e. WP:NOTINHERITED. The three sources in lead citing the company have only a few sentences about the developer and rely heavily on developer's own words. (See also Draft:Innersloth.) — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —  HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. While Among Us is clearly notable, InnerSloth is not just for developing it. The article should be deleted and a redirect to Among Us created on top. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 14:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comments,, that you feel at the very least the page should be left with a redirect at the end of all this. Perhaps you could reevaluate your position, in light of the significant research and expansion that I did to the article page after perusing hundreds of articles about the subject matter. Thank you very much for your time and your feedback, it's most appreciated. Right cite (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My position already states that a redirect should be created on top of the deleted article (which is what I always request to avoid IP spammers reinstating AfD-redirected articles). As for the current state of the article, I feel like a large could be chopped off as it is relevant to only Among Us or their other games (such as being inspired by Nuclear Throne). What is there can be comfortably merged into the Among Us article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceWelder (talk • contribs)


 * Keep, Not only is Among Us notable, Innersloth is also a conglomerate, a collaboration with PuffballsUnited, one of the most prolific Newgrounds developers in the late aughts, early 2010s. The Henry Stickmin Collection, which does not currently have a page for not meeting Notability standards, is still in Drafts, awaiting publication, and deleting Innersloth's article is a premature burial of this indie studio which so far has developed two important video games. Make no mistake, just because an article does not meet strict notability standards, ergo, not reported on by secondary sources, that does not mean that the subject of the article is not important. The Henry Stickmin games, as well as Among Us are proof enough that this article should remain. Currently, it is a stub article, which needs to change, but that should be fixed by adding MORE information, not by deleting the article altogether. RobotGoggles (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Subjective importance does not merit an article on Wikipedia, notability does. WP:ITSIMPORTANT is a common fallacy. Of the mentioned games, one was deleted, the other already has an article. WP:NOTINHERITED is similarly a common fallacy. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep also makes Dig2China a popular game in China Dq209 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The notability of the games InnerSloth makes is not directly correlated to the notability of InnerSloth. Additionally, Dig2China would probably be considered less notable than InnerSloth, and most certainly has virtually nothing to do about the topic of deleting this article. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article lacks sources to indicate notability. Chrisnait (talk &#124; contribs) 17:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can understand your assessment at the time you made this comment,, but perhaps you could have another look, after significant research was done on the topic to bring the article up to this version several days after you had commented. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Not really. If you search InnerSloth on Google and go to "News", you find many articles about Among Us and many of them talk about InnerSloth. These are good secondary sources (for main sources see Draft:Innersloth). Indeed, we dont have many sources and references for the article, but the company is getting more and more success, which could attract more notability in the near future. Why delete this page, then after a month just remake it again because only then more sources start to appear? Waste of time, I think.


 * I suggest that, if we can, to just remove InnerSloth from the article space and reput it in a draft format (I don't know if it's possible, because I am a begginer at Wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Beagle (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Before getting into AfD's, it would be best to familiarize yourself with Notability. The notability of article topics aren't determined by an arbitrary sense of notability. There are requirements, and if even one requirement is not met, the topic will probably be considered unnotable. The most relevant part that InnerSloth does not meet is WP:GNG, particularly that of which there is no independent, in-depth discussions. While there is plenty of content on the topic, it all is the same stuff, and is all linked to Among Us. I simply haven't found anything that would prove that it is notable as its own subject. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability not proven, should redirect to Among Us and be fully protected against recreation.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It shouldn't be fully protected against recreation. Other things might show up for better notability (and we all know this is notable, we just can't theoretically prove it).  It should be deleted, but wide open for consideration in the future.  Le Panini (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agreed, there is no point to fully protect it, as it could get more notable over time. Captain  Galaxy  19:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it may be a good idea for the article to be temporarily protected from recreation. Among Us is such a popular game at the moment, I could imagine people would consistently try and create an article about InnerSloth. However, I don't think this will occur often enough for the need for full protection. The article most likely needs semi-protection at the most. If it turns out that that isn't enough, extended confirmed protection may be enforced, but I simply don't see a need for full protection. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Among Us and maybe recreate it later. It will be notable in the future so we can recreate it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Beagle (talk • contribs) 14:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Among Us. There is potential this could be a possible article in the future so I see no value in deletion of the current article w/ its references at this time, but definitely redirection of that until it can be expanded further. --M asem (t) 19:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think it should be redirected to Among Us, either.  One of the games on its own can be notable enough, but redirecting the company that made the game and others as well is kinda weird.  It's like redirecting Nintendo to the Mario franchise (which I know will never happen, just saying).  We should keep it open for now, and wait for more to show up. Le Panini (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment In most cases, this would be a good analogy. However, by far the most notable thing InnerSloth has done was create Among Us. Nothing they have done has came close. And so as the only notable thing they've done, redirecting InnerSloth to Among Us would make sense until they make other notable games. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: Thank you,, for recognizing, above, that there is potential that this could be a possible article and you see no value in deletion of the article with its references. When you made that comment, that was in reference to a prior version of the article from previous state nominated for deletion. I undertook a research project on the article in an attempt to improve it further, after you commented. Perhaps you could compare to current state, post research and expansion project, and see if you could reevaluate? Thank you, Right cite (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect While Among Us is undeniably notable, InnerSloth hasn't met the same qualifications. They have been mentioned quite a lot in articles, and have also made the somewhat popular Henry Stickmin games and "Dig2China." However, there doesn't seem to be significant coverage about the company itself, which means InnerSloth doesn't meet the requirements to be considered notable. InnerSloth has the potential to become notable in the future, but as of the moment, the article should be deleted, and a redirect link to Among Us should be made. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

*Keep: Please consider improving it by putting improve tags instead of deleting the whole article. As mentioned, it has potential notability. Thanks. KesunyianAyam (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't create articles because a topic might some day be notable per WP:CRYSTAL. You could use the same argument for literally any topic. Thus the sourcing threshold of GNG is set in the present. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect Leaving aside the question of redirection for the moment, first off, notability is not inherited. Even if they created the world's most famous video game of all time (they didn't), we need to see references *about the company*. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Based on that, none of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. As to whether there is potential in the future for an article as stated above - I would say this topic hasn't come close to meeting the criteria. If it was a case that there were a number of references which came close, a redirect would make more sense but for now, no need for a redirect. In the future, if and when it becomes notable, then an article can easily be created.  HighKing++ 12:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a reason that InnerSloth's notability would have to do with a redirect link? I read the guidelines on redirects, and there is nothing saying that completely unnotable topics shouldn't be redirected. So regardless of the level of notability of InnerSloth, I think it would be best to create a redirect link. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No reason. I'm not against a redirect in general for alternate names or subtopics, etc. Some editors say that WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP and are happy to redirect everything and anything. I generally prefer to stick with the list at WP:RPURPOSE but its one of those areas that is a free-for-all. I've added a Redirect option in any case above.  HighKing++ 11:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - It needs a stub tag and some expansion, but the developer has produced two notable games, which should be enough to warrant an article. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 09:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not enough to warrant an article, passing GNG does. Stubbing is for topic with sources that haven't been added yet, not for topics where an AfD discussion fails to produce GNG sources. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to Among Us. While they have produced two notable games (well, questionably one notable game), that does not make them notable by association and there are not multiple in-depth reliable sources discussing them. Just name drops in articles about their games. So, they fail both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. That said, I'd be fine with a redirect. Although, I can also see where a redirect might not be necessary compared to just deleting it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, The Henry Stickmin Collection is actually protected against creation. The company is not notable for all the same reasons I declined Draft:Innersloth. A redirect to Among Us would be useful. Naleksuh (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Escapist Magazine article "Among Us Devs Have Created a Gaming Phenomenon, Albeit Two Years After It Launched" and The Verge article "Among Us is so popular that its developers just canceled the sequel" are directly about the company and developers. I think GNG has been met. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Escapist Magazine article discusses the game with the developers. It provides no information whatsoever about the company. There's two sentences that maybe you could argue are "Independent Content" since it is the author's own opinion which are "The most delightful thing about Innersloth is that they are fueled by excitement." and "In every word they shared, it was clear that InnerSloth was never the type of people to give up on their game." This is not in-depth coverage on the company, that reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The reference from The Verge also discusses the game but provides no information on the company whatsoever, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 11:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with, as well as articles from PC Invasion and Comic Years that have lots of significant discussion about the main topic. Right cite (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The two articles cited by ToughPigs are the same article and talk about the game. Not the company. The same goes for the articles you cited. One of them is literally called "The History of Among Us." So, they don't discuss the main topic of the article at all, because the article is about the company, not the game! --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is discussion of this article's topic in those articles, even if this article isn't in the headline of those articles themselves. No need for the bold, and the exclamation point, ow ow ow, the shouting it hurts my ears. Right cite (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Right Cite, I think you should read WP:ATA before commeting on someone's tone! Billy Beagle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Bolding is unnecessary. Right cite (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Verge article Toughpigs meant to link is probably this. And I largely agree with Adamant1 -- these articles are not the significant coverage that GNG expects. There's barely a few sentences there about the company itself and those that have anything more at by the developers themselves, and thus not secondary. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I miscopied the URL for the Verge article; I've corrected it. The Escapist Magazine article is called "Among Us Devs Have Created a Gaming Phenomenon, Albeit Two Years After It Launched", and the Verge article is called "Among Us is so popular that its developers just canceled the sequel". Both articles have "Developers" in the title -- i.e., the company that developed the game. The articles cover choices that the company made during and after the game's initial launch. I think that the claim that the articles "talk about the game, not the company" is a misreading of NOTINHERITED. Game companies are known for developing games; that's what makes them notable. Discussion of the game that they developed is discussion of the company. The "not the company" argument implies that there could possibly be a detailed RS about a game company's choices and strategy without mentioning the games that they develop. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I disagree that "Discussion of the game that [a company] developed is discussion of the company". That, to me, is exactly what NOTINHERITED cautions against. I mean, I see and understand your argument, but I still hold that GNG requires significant discussion about the company directly rather than implicitly and with minimal use of developer's own words. What constitues "direct" and "indirect" will always be subjective, so I concede that these sources can be viewed as significant coverage, even though I personally disagree. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've posted this below also but worth repeating here. WP:SIGCOV is not the applicable guideline for determining what is Significant Coverage for companies/organizations - that is WP:CORPDEPTH which is a part of WP:NCORP. "Significant Coverage" is described as Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. NCORP is also the applicable guideline for products which is why it is included in that sentence. This bit is important It doesn't mean that Significant Coverage of a product can be used to establish notability for the company and vice versa. There is a clear requirement that the reference provides an overview/description/commentary/survey/study/discussion/analysis/etc *about the company* (which is the topic here) or when the topic of an article is *about a product*, the significant coverage should be about the product . WP:NOTINHERITED simply says the same thing in a different way.  HighKing++ 21:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * NCORP is an extension of GNG, so GNG is always applicable (WP:SNG). But otherwise I agree with all of that. I mean, do any of my comments appear otherwise? I have refrained from commenting below because there's enough editors going back and forth already. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect striking duplicate !vote to Among Us. It seems like people only care about the game, not the company. And probably temporarely be protected against recreation, because maybe, in the fture, we will have more references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Beagle (talk • contribs) 06:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have already !voted above, please don't format your comments to appear like multiple votes. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: UPDATE. after all, it really can't be carried by Among Us's notability as per WP:NOTINHERITED. But I believe it can be notable in the future but as per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't have an article about it yet. So if considering for a redirect to Among Us also, for me, it's not worth it because Among Us can't explain what InnerSloth is. Thanks. -- KesunyianAyam (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect. Among Us is a very notable game, and the developers deserve a page, but there isn't enough sorces. SWinxy (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -- sources directly discussing the topic, with the name of the topic in the headline of the sources = InnerSloth has responded to Among Us hackers ruining matches and Innersloth moves to fight Among Us cheating. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And even in other languages = InnerSloth responde ante los hackers que están arruinando las partidas en Among Us and Game Among Us Dilanda Cheater, Ini Langkah InnerSloth and InnerSloth, Sosok di Balik Kesuksesan Game Among Us and Skyegrid Media - Among Us akan di Rilis Konsol PS4? Ini Kata InnerSloth. Thanks, Right cite (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet all those are articles are still about Among Us and don't actually discuss the company beyond name dropping it. Otherwise, cite a single in-depth paragraph discussing "the company" in any of those articles. At the end of the day you can find any number of articles on pretty much any product out there that "mentions" the entity that created it. That's not the point here though and it's not what makes a company notable. Otherwise, every damn pencil manufacturer, toilet maker, widget producer, author, singer, etc. etc. would have an article and the only the thing people have to do is cite a Tweet that mentions them. What is the point here is multiple in-depth coverage pertaining to the company in multiple reliable sources.


 * Or, look at this another way and ask yourselves if this company would even be named dropped anywhere at this point if it was not for them producing Among Us. If your answer is no, then your only argument is that they are notable for a single thing through inheritance. Which doesn't work for notability. If your answer is yes though, it's not backed up by the sources and then you just aren't being fair about the process. In other words, find a single source that on them that isn't "mainly", or hell even partly, about Among Us. One single article on them exclusively is a ridiculously low bar to get over. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. long form article about every single developer on the InnerSloth team. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. I said an article that's about the developer not about Among U and the game is litliterally what the article is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're creating magical standards out of thin air. The article is about both. Read it. Take the time to read the article itself. Right cite (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No you are, because I was clear that the source had to not be "mainly", or hell even partly, about Among Us and in response you cited a source that was exactly that, because you can't provide one that isn't about the game. Sorry, but WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:SIGCOV aren't "magical standards" that I created out of thin air. Either provide a source about the company like I asked for and the notability guidelines require, or stop bludgeoning the process with your unhelpful, repetitive comments. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that you were "bludgoned", I hope you're doing okay. My apologies. Let's both take a break from replying back and forth to each other on this page for a while. I hope you feel better soon. Right cite (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I said your bludging "the process." It has nothing to do with me. So don't miss quote me. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, please note that there is no requirement that a source be "primarily" about the article's subject to contribute to its Notability. SIGCOV is a flexible standard, but a few paragraphs are generally fine to provide an instance supporting the Notability of the subject. Even a single paragraph is not what policy calls a passing mention. Newimpartial (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NCORP says "A company is notable if "it" has been "the subject" of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources." I would consider that as saying that the source be "primarily" about the article's subject for it contribute to notability. Otherwise, there would be no reason it would have to be "the subject" of the article. While passing mentions are fine in articles, they aren't great for notability in AfDs. Just like it's perfectly fine to cite Twitter in an article to support basic facts, but something being Twitted about is not evidence of said thing being notable. Adamant1 (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SIGCOV - it is quite clear there that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material (emphasis added). So your suggestion that the source be "primarily" about the article's subject for it contribute to notability is in direct contradiction to policy. Also, paragraph or multi-paragraph discussions are never "passing mentions" in the context of policy; the example given in SIGCOV is the sentence In high school, (Bill Clinton) was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice, which does not lend Notability to the band. What we have in this instance are multiple sources giving multi-paragraph treatment of the article's subject which are not discussing InnerSloth's main game property. As I say below, this is a clear NCORP pass. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:SIGCOV is not the applicable guideline for determining what is Significant Coverage for companies/organizations - that is WP:CORPDEPTH which is a part of WP:NCORP. "Significant Coverage" is described as Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. NCORP is also the applicable guideline for products which is why it is included in that sentence. It doesn't mean that Significant Coverage of a product can be used to establish notability for the company and vice versa. So you are correct, there is nothing to indicate that the topic company must be the primary topic. But it does require that the reference provides "deep and significant coverage". I've read the reference from PC Invasion and I cannot where in the article it provides an overview/description/commentary/survey/study/discussion/analysis/etc *about the company*. It says "InnerSloth, the developer of Among Us, ...". Everything else even tangentially about the company (e.g. Fans were reassured that the developer is rushing to get systems in place for moderation and reporting" is attributed to a company executive which fails the definition of "Independent Content" (WP:ORGIND).  HighKing++ 20:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, HighKing, SIGCOV offers a widely-discussed definition that is universal to the project, while CORPDEPTH was part of a rather limited SNG process, so I don't think it is widely agreed that CORPDEPTH was intended to supercede SIGCOV on the case of organizations; I rather suspect that participants intended it to be a specification rather than a replacement. But be that as it may, I did review CORPDEPTH before commenting here, and it seems to me that you are implicitly requiring a kind of high-level organizational analysis out of the sources, to be significant, that the guideline does not actually require. I will quote what I take to be the key passage of CORPDEPTH at length: For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO. Further, the significance is not determined by the reputation of the source. For example, a 400-word article in The Village Voice is a lot more significant than a single-sentence mention in The New York Times. Note that the example of "more significant" coverage is 400 words in a niche news source, and the content described is to discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership. What we have in Escapist and IGN each exceed both the word count and the depth of treatment requirements set out in CORPDEPTH - what is required there is depth of detail regarding corporate decisions, actions and environment, and does not necessarily require financial, organizational or cultural analysis of the kind beloved by MBAs and the commentariat. At least, not according to the passage I quoted from CORPDEPTH, and the examples therein. And these are not the only sources on InnerSloth that meet that test. Newimpartial (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem for me with using SIGCOV is that I don't even think it passes that. For instance looking at "Among Us Devs Have Created a Gaming Phenomenon, Albeit Two Years After It Launched." The article has like 17 paragraphs. Of which 12 "mention" InnerSloth. Which is great. Except if you break it down 1. says they spent long nights developing the game. 2. says they didn't give up and refined the game 3. They added more content 4. Every time they thought the game was done they added more to it. 5. They decided to add more stuff to the game when it got popular. 6. They share a passion for the game with their fans. 7. They are "fueled by excitement" Etc etc. The rest is more of the same. I mean great, but how does any of that qualify as "Significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail"? Because it's all extremely trivial, surface level information that could apply to any video game company out there. Every single video game company works late on the game, adds content to it, and more stuff to the game as it gets more popular, shares a passion for the game with their fans, etc etc. None of that is unique to InnerSloth, "detailed", encyclopedic, or works for SIGCOV IMO. It's a company going about it's business run of the mill stuff. Which is not what the SIGCOV guideline exists for the allowence of in articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You know, a typical account of Caesar's invasion of Gaul could be given the same numbered-paragraph, trivializing treatment. I'm not sure whether you are questioning whether the article under discussion is specific enough to InnerSloth, or whether it is giving enough information to be useful for the WP article, or what. To me, the best answer to both of those questions is the excitement expressed at that point about the sequel - a sequel which, per other RS, is now cancelled. Since this article (and some others) actually discuss these plans and decisions in relation to the developer, rather than e.g. as news announced on Twitter, they are useful in the creation of a WP article based on independent, reliable sources. The level of significance and detail offered on this and other points in the Escapost article is exactly what we need. The point of the GNG and NCORP is to ensure that we actually have such sources for our articles, not to demand that our articles meet some personal, subjective test concerning the significance or importance of the topic - which is at best orthogonal to WP:N. Newimpartial (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure, I agree it could. Which is probably why Caesar's conquest of Gaul is a redirect to Gallic Wars. So, I think you proved my point. That said, WP:OTHERSTUFF is as weak an argument as IDONTLIKEIT would be. With the other part of what you said, you keep switching from guideline based arguments to support why your right, but then falling back on personal preference and emotional arguments to refute other people citing the guidelines. Which isn't really helpful. If anything, your the one making the personal, subjective tests by saying things like "points in the Escapost article is exactly what we need." I don't see anywhere here saying we need the points made in the Escapost article about them staying up late to create the game. and it's only personal opinion that we are or need that kind of information. Whereas, your the one that said the articles meet SIGCOV and when I asked how sentences like "they spent long nights developing the game" meets SIGCOV like you claim they do, your answer is "we need the information." Which is circular reasoning, just plain wrong, and more importantly has nothing to do SIGCOV. Which is what I asked you about. Not your personal opinion on what information Wikipedia readers "need" to have in articles. Which is a weird form of WP:CRYSTAL and not really relevant to AfDs. We aren't copyrighters or soothsayers, who only write articles with information we personally think people "might" like or need. It's definitely not the point in AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify - I wasn't talking previously about what readers "need" but rather what editors "need". We need statements like Most of InnerSloth’s decisions about the game’s future took place well before the unprecedented spike in player numbers that occurred in July and Knowing that the sequel has been floated since the early days of Among Us and given the excitement that fuels the InnerSloth team, there is a lot of creativity ready to be channeled into the new title (from the Escapist source), to document the history of the company. Whatever the limitations of my previous comment, the reasoning wasn't circular.
 * Also, I think you will find upon review that each time I have refuted someone's misinterpretation of guidelines I did so by citing guidelines and policies myself, not by falling back on personal preference and emotional arguments. Per the WP:TPG, editors are supposed to provide documentation (preferably diffs) when they discuss the behaviour of other editors, rather than casting WP:ASPERSIONS on them. Newimpartial (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: Many thanks to and  for the idea, above, 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)
 * All you did was write a non-neutral ref bombing advert for the company that still doesn't talk about them in any in-depth, non-trivial way. Good job. As far as the guidelines are concered the article was much better before you edited it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2nd request that this user and I take a break from the back and forth with each other. User seems to have ignored this request, above. Right cite (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was totally fine taking a break from it. Your the one that reverted my edited to the page and then said I should explain the though. It's kind of BS to go off about taking a break from something while you continue instigating things. This wouldn't even be a thing right now if you had of pissed of my edits and not asked me something. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I tried to engage in discussion on the talk page. The user failed to have a good faith discussion politely, failing to volunteer any specific reasoning for their actions. Right cite (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Adamant1 has not been behaving in a manner befitting Wikipedia, and refuses to discuss his differences and complaints about the article in question, on the talk page, where appropriate, choosing instead to wage an edit war, and insult Right cite's character. This needs to be addressed. RobotGoggles (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, Right cite reverted me before I had a chance to explain it on the talk page and then went off that I didn't explain it. When he/she was the one that removed the template without giving me the chance to in the first place. So, it's not on me that I wasn't given a chance to say why I added the banner. Then he/she said "either explain it or I'll remove it." Which wasn't a good faithed or polite way to see what my reason for adding it was. Plus, reverting someone once isn't "editing waring" anyway. Also, I'd love for you to point to what was "insulting Right cite character" in the message I left them on their talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment — Redirect The new articles that have been provided in the AfD by Right cite talk significantly about InnerSloth, and clearly shows an increased interest in InnerSloth. However, the main topic is Among Us. At most, the articles direct focus on InnerSloth's actions and developments pertaining to the game. No media or news source finds InnerSloth notable enough to write about them as its own topic. InnerSloth's notability clearly hasn't been established per WP:NOTINHERITED. And so InnerSloth simply doesn't have the notability to keep the Wikipedia article on the subject. Also, to respond to the people that think InnerSloth should not redirect to Among Us: Among Us is by far the most notable thing that InnerSloth has done. The next notable thing, Henry Stickmin, does not even have a Wikipedia page. Reading the guidelines on redirecting, there does not seem to be any rules that are against redirecting. Among Us being a topic that is relevant to the topic of InnerSloth, and Among Us being by far the most notable thing, and the only notable topic closely related to InnerSloth, it would be best suited that InnerSloth redirects to Among Us. If InnerSloth becomes successful in creating another notable product, but still isn't notable enough to have its own page, then deleting the redirect could be considered due to unjustified emphasis of Among Us.
 * I also suggest semi-protection against recreation of the InnerSloth page. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sorry to see that you feel all of my research was for nothing. I would ask users to take a look at this version of the page, after my research, and see if Wikipedia readers are best served by having this article remain on Wikipedia. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:AMOUNT. You made the article look nice, but this does not imply notability. Notability is the threshold for an article as outlined by WP:GNG: the individual sources have to have significant coverage about the subject. Every source in the article is about their games, mostly Among Us, and not the company. None of them have any substantial content about the company that isn't in developer's own words. WP:ITSUSEFUL to readers is not a criteria. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But the statement, None of them have any substantial content about the company that isn't in developer's own words is not entirely accurate. It is not true of the Escapist and IGN pieces that I've reviewed in detail, and doesn't seem to be true of several other sources, either. The statement Every source in the article is about their games, mostly Among Us, and not the company makes it sounds as if a source that is "about" a game can't be SIGCOV of the company, which is not the case either in policy or in the actual sources under discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - could only be considered notable for Henry Stickmin collection and Among Us. Rght now the company is not that well known - not that notable to get a Wikipedia article. Let's see what future has to offer. But deletion seems to be a good choice for now. 78.36.163.169 (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Among Us - The work Right Cite put in is admirable, but it doesn't solve the problem: sources overwhelmingly talk about InnerSloth in context of Among Us and not as an individual notable company. Take this whole passage for example:


 * In an interview with Kotaku, Bromander explained the strengths and weaknesses behind the developers at InnerSloth.[9] Bromander lamented that they were not skilled at promoting their products, telling Kotaku, "We’re really bad at marketing."[9] Kotaku analyzed the efficiency of the development team at InnerSloth, concluding the company succeeded at persevering to improve their product even after an initial stage of failure to achieve popularity in the beginning.[9] InnerSloth developers focused on the player experience, over and above microtransactions.[20] The InnerSloth developers appreciated the Internet memes based on their work, and were driven to create an enjoyable user experience for the players.[12] Willard explained the business model behind InnerSloth, "We’re a slow-growing company. We snowball our way to the top instead of spike and tail like most Steam releases do."[9] Liu stated she started to follow video game streamers to get more ideas for artistic development at InnerSloth.[9] InnerSloth faced challenges from rapid success during 2020.[18] After an increase in popularity in 2020, Willard stated the company planned to increase server performance for August 2021.[25] After experiencing problems with hackers attacking their servers in 2020, InnerSloth responded by adapting their systems and servers.[8][21] They made modifications to allow for moderation in-game and reporting of problems to the development team.[8][21]


 * Virtually all this information is discussed within the context of Among Us in the sources, but that detail is missing from the article.


 * For example: the first claim made here is: Bromander lamented that they were not skilled at promoting their products, telling Kotaku, "We’re really bad at marketing."[9].
 * Now here is the original context, quoted from the source: Among Us’ Twitch explosion was not born of a too-online Twitter account, marketing machinations that leveraged Twitch’s numbers-driven structure to gain not-entirely-earned visibility, or anything like that. “We’re really bad at marketing,” Among Us artist and game designer Marcus Bromander told Kotaku during a phone interview last week.


 * Here is another example. The article claims InnerSloth developers focused on the player experience, over and above microtransactions.[20]
 * Here is the context from the source: Among Us represent a different school of thought when it comes to the future of gaming. Developers can choose to give back to their customers by adding features that encourage players to keep playing and spread the word to their friends, or they can fill games with microtransactions and rerelease what is essentially the same game every year. While the latter has certainly been successful (at least financially), Innersloth's approach sets a refreshing and consumer-friendly standard that others should follow.


 * Because of this editing approach, the article has become misleading, suggesting that InnerSloth's business practices with Among Us are characteristic of the company and employees. This is not what sources are claiming. In conclusion, most of the information in this article should be in the Among Us article instead with the correct context, and this article should be redirected. TarkusAB talk / contrib 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the approach Tarcus has taken to reading these passages is not compliant with policy. While NOTINHERITED is definitely a key principle, that does not mean that the article's subject has to be discussed entirely apart from its products to contribute to its Notability. A discussion of decisions made by developers, that resulted in qualities of the product, are relevant to both the developer and the product, just as a discussion of the Ford Motor Company's production choices is relevant to both the producer and the product. Coverage of AboutUs that does not discuss the developers and their strategic (and tactical) decisions does not contribute to the Notability of InnerSloth but coverage that does discuss these and other aspects of the developers, does. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing inheritance. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself correctly. Let me try to explain another way: Imagine you wrote a Wikipedia article about an old French film, and it became one of the most popular articles on Wikipedia. So popular, in fact, that some websites decide to interview you Newimpartial, the primary author. They ask you how you did it, and you say: "I spent lots of time translating old French newspaper articles into English." It would therefore be misleading to say generally about you: "Newimpartial is an editor that spends lots of time translating old French newspaper articles into English." It's misleading because it's being presented as a general characteristic about you, when you were only answering how you wrote that one French film article. It's not known if you would employ that practice for other articles. TarkusAB talk / contrib 16:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I did misunderstand your comment, because I interpreted it as a comment relevant to an AfD discussion. If you are arguing as a matter of prose style that the sources are poorly reflected in the draft text, that may well be true, but that wouldn't be relevant to a discussion about Notability on WP. So to take an example similar to the one you gave, if an independent, reliable source discussed my translations, how I go about them, and so forth, that would absolutely contribute to my Notability as a translator, and not only to the Notability of whatever I had translated (though if I published a collections of translations and it received multiple, RS reviews as a work in itself, that might also be notable).
 * My point about INHERITance wasn't that you are using or misusing the principle, I was just noting that it is relevant. So to continue with my own example, if my collected translations were Notable but there were no additional independently and reliably sourced information about me apart from reviews of my work, that would not make me Notable, per NOTINHERITED. Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - multiple independent, reliable sources talk about the company, that is the developers - their actions and strategies - and not simply review or discuss the game they produced. These include Escapist magazine and IGN (see the paragraph beginning, "InnerSloth doesn't really have a professional office").
 * This is a clear NCORP pass, really. The relationship between video game developers and their products is different from that of literary or musical producers, and this may make it easy for editors to assume that this discussion is only "about the game, not the company" but when I actually read the sources, I see plenty of discussion about the company itself - who the principals are, and what they did - rather than only "about the game". That is what constitutes Notability, not some discussion of the company and its principals in complete abstraction from its products, which is the non-policy-compliant bar certain !voters seem to have demanded, while other votes about to "it doesn't feel notable", without reference to policy. And I haven't even talked about the sources relating to the cancellation of About Us 2, which logically are all contribute to the Notability of the company, not the first game.
 * TL;DR - GNG and NCORP pass, by policy, regardless of all the IDONTLIKEIT and BLUDGEON I see here in the AfD. And all the discussion about salting the topic strikes me as a kind of premature gravedancing IMO. Newimpartial 13:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NCORP states "a company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage." There is no clause anywhere that video game companies get a pass from that because they are "different." Nor is anyone having the expectation that the sources be about "the subject" them making an IDONTLIKEIT argument. Is an article that you cited called "How Among Us Came Back From the Brink of Obscurity" about "the subject" of this article InnerSloth? Clearly not. Especially when it is mainly comprised of things like "The tension in Among Us is perfectly balanced", "the proliferation of Among Us' popularity can be chalked up to the simplicity of the design.", "Among Us has a bright future ahead of it", "Among Us is built on old tech", etc etc. It's not an "IDONTLIKEIT" arguement to say those sentences are about the game. Which isn't what this article is about. It's just the facts. Same goes for the other source. "Given its current status as the most viewed game on Twitch, you have probably heard of or played "Among Us"", "Now, obviously InnerSloth never really gave up on "Among Us"; the team has spent its post-release period refining "the game" with very quiet success, so you can understand why they announced that Among Us was complete back in January", "Shortly after the game launched, Willard mentioned that a Korean YouTuber "picked up the game"", etc etc. Is "the subject" in any of the that the developer or is "the subject" of all those sentences the game? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't BLUDGEON. As I stated in response to your similarly misleading comment above, it is clearly stated in WP:SIGCOV that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material (emphasis added). So your question, Is an article that you cited called "How Among Us Came Back From the Brink of Obscurity" about "the subject" of this article InnerSloth? is not relevant to policy - what is relevant is whether the article gives significant treatment to the company in its content (it does). Paragraph or multi-paragraph discussions are never "passing mentions" in the context of policy; the example given in SIGCOV is the sentence In high school, (Bill Clinton) was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice, which does not lend Notability to the band. What we have in this instance are multiple sources giving multi-paragraph treatment of the article's subject which are not discussing InnerSloth's main game property. This is a clear NCORP pass, and your claim that I am treating video game companies as "different" is a STRAWMAN, thanks. What I am saying is that editors may not recognize the distinction between creator and work as readily in this context, but to me the distinction is obvious and should be applied consistently. Newimpartial (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it misleading to directly cite a guideline? Especially since it's the one your citing to say this is notable. There aren't multiple sources of multi-paragraph discussions of the company anyway. So, your point about it is moot about it. As far as the "STRAWMAN" thing goes, your the one that said "The relationship between video game developers and their products is different from that of literary or musical producers." It's not a strawman to repeat what you said and you said they were different. "Different" was the exact word you used. Nice try though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your statement above is misleading because you are misreading NCORP - "the subject of significant coverage" cannot mean "the main topic of articles giving significant coverage" because that would conflict with SIGCOV where the concept of "significant coverage" is defined. Instead, it means quite literally the subject of significant coverage, as in, the reliable sources actually give significant coverage to the subject. And there are certainly many sources giving full paragraphs of coverage to the company, aside from the game, including the two I linked above.
 * And if you are confused by my saying that the "relationship" is different for video game developers, which confuses editors, so it is hard for them to maintain consistent treatment about Notability, then I will try harder to be clear in the future. But your construal that video game companies get a pass from that because they are "different" is most definitely a STRAWMAN and almost directly the opposite of what I have been consistently saying here. I am saying that if you aren't confused by the discussion being about video game developers, the coverage here clearly supports the Notability of the company per NCORP. Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All mentions of Among Us can be thought of as mere details of Among Us. The developers of Among Us persisted and created a viral game. Updates were made to Among Us. Developers created Among Us. Developers love the Among Us memes. InnerSloth isn't written about purely because of the fact that they are Inner Sloth. The sole reason that InnerSloth has significant content written about them is because of Among Us. To rephrase, the only reason that InnerSloth has significant content about them is because they happened to create the viral game, Among Us. By your logic, regardless of the group that created Among Us, they were bound to automatically be notable. If a single person created Among Us, and significant content were made on the person, they would have an article per your logic. Clearly, the unnotability of InnerSloth is made clear with WP:NOTINHERITED. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * By that logic, the article Albert Einstein must not include any sources that mention the Theory of relativity, only Einstein's life itself. Right cite (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (E/c) But GeicoGECKO, you have set out a mistaken interpretation of NOTINHERITED. The policy-relevant question is whether there are independent, reliable sources with information about an article's topic sufficient to pass the WP:GNG and, in this instance, WP:NCORP. The key, defining element of NOTINHERITED, in the present context, is the following: parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable. However, NOTINHERITED neither states nor implies that sources discussing a product cannot count to the Notability of its creator if they also provide verifiable information about their creator, as many of the sources do in this case. Attempts to assess the "significance" of the parent (in this case the software developer) to decide Notability runafoul of the injunction on WP:N that importance is not the measure of Notability. The policy-relevant significance of coverage concerns *whether* the sources exist and whether *they* are sufficient, not *why* the sources exist or whether the *subject* is significant. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please all, don't bold for emphasis. Makes it very hard to read this page. Use italics if you must. TarkusAB talk / contrib 18:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject in question must have independent notability. My point is that InnerSloth's notability relies almost solely on Among Us. Just because the topic is significantly mentioned doesn't make it notable. All independent information so far provided has information on InnerSloth with respect to some sort of connection to Among Us. It does not have independent notability. The notability of InnerSloth relies almost solely on the notability of Among Us, and the majority of the significant coverage of InnerSloth directly relates to Among Us. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have just reviewed NCORP again, and I don't see any basis there for your notion of independent notability of a company, as in, independent from its products. I have already reviewed NOTINHERITED and find no policy basis for it there. GEICOgecko, are you finding a policy basis for this concept somewhere else? If so, could you point me in the right direction? Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , see WP:INHERITORG which says The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. Or take a look at WP:CORPDEPTH, a part of WP:NCORP, which defines "Significant Coverage" as follows: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. NCORP is also the applicable guideline for products which is why it is included in that sentence. This bit is important It doesn't mean that Significant Coverage of a product can be used to establish notability for the company and vice versa. There is a clear requirement that the reference provides an overview/description/commentary/survey/study/discussion/analysis/etc *about the company* (which is the topic here) or when the topic of an article is *about a product*, the significant coverage should be about the product . WP:NOTINHERITED simply says the same thing in a different way. There is no notability through association. An article about a product doesn't confer notability on the company that makes the product and vice versa. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 21:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * HighKing, I wish editors would not BLUDGEON the discussion so that I have to give the same reply to the same editor on the same topic in several places. My reply to your comments on CORPDEPTH is in this edit. As far as WP:INHERITORG is concerned, it rightly specifies that sources have to give significant coverage about the company, not the product to count towards the Notability of the company. I, with all right thinking editors, agree with this. This does not mean that, if the topic of the article is the product, what is said in that article about the company doesn't count the company's Notability (or vice versa), so long as CORPDEPTH is satisfied. This conflicts with your reading above when you say, An article about a product doesn't confer notability on the company. I just don't see any basis for that in policy: rather, the same source can contribute to the Notability of a product, and an organization, and a person, if what it contains is significant treatment of all three within the source. An article about a product doesn't necessarily contribute to the Notability of a company, but it can if it contains sufficient coverage of the company in question. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment BTW, as the article currently stands Among Us is mentioned more times in it then the company is. Yet somehow the article, and the sources it's based on, are about the company and not the game. Right....At this point it's just a glorified WP:FORK of Among Us. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, this article has been nominated for deletion on grounds of Notability. As such, the text of any particular draft of the article is strictly irrelevant - what matters is the state of potential sources for the article, in terms of policy. So let's try to keep the discussion on topic, please. Newimpartial (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AFD says "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." That's it. Nothing confines the discussion to just being about notability. Also, it should be obvious that the discussion is based on the current state of the article. That's exactly what new "voters" who are coming along are judging it on. Not how it was when it was originally created or whatever. So, it's 100% on topic to discuss the current state of the article and to discuss whatever is included in "whether an article should be delete." Which again, isn't just confined to notable. Id say even more so if the article has been drastically alterted from the version it was in when the AfD was opened like here. Its not like people can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude, chill. WP:BLUDGEON. Also, WP:SHOUTING. TarkusAB talk / contrib 15:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, please recognize WP:ARTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article ... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Now, Adamant1, perhaps you mean to be making a policy-compliant argument here at AfD that isn't about WP:N (including NCORP and SIGCOV arguments) but if so, I must have missed it somewhere above. Newimpartial (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If other topics are relevant to the deletion of the article, then it should be talked about, but at the moment, it seems that the main and biggest concern is that of notability, which has nothing to do about the state of the article itself. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that Adamant1's behavior in this conversation is an example of WP:BLUDGEONing, which is not productive. They have posted 13 times in the conversation so far, which is unnecessary. The participant who has the last word in every exchange is not rewarded with the outcome of their choice. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If I'm committing WP:BLUDGEONing then I expect the same standard to apply to Newimpartial who has commented 19 times (while accusing other people of WP:BLUDGEON) and also Right cite who has commented 23 times (23!) while taking the same position as Newimpartial that other people's comments are WP:BLUDGEON and there's are perfectly legit. At least in my case I was responded to other people's responses to what I said and my comments have to do with the AfD and the article. Whereas, Rite cite has mostly only written self agrandizing comments about how great their editing to the article was and written a bunch of personal, off topic, poor me messages that had nothing to do with policy or the AfD. Whereas, in the case of Newimpartial, all they have done is repeat the same crap over and over and critized other people's comments. None of which has been constructive or helpful. Sure, single me out though as commenting to much. Not the person that's wroten 23 messages. So feel free to say the same thing to Rite cite and Newimpartial. Otherwise, you can piss off. In the meantime I'm going to keep responding to people who have pinged me or responded to my messages etc. I don't give a crap how many messages it takes to do so either. Hell, HELLKNOWZ has commented 10 times. So has TheGEICOgecko. HighKing has commented 9 times. Feel free to chide them about WP:BLUDGEON also. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ten of my 19 edits to this page (prior to this one) were minor copy edits. The moral of that story is that edit counts are not a good measure of the weight or reach of one's BLUDGEON. I would also point out that some of my replies were in response to your, and HighKing's, decisions to repeat your replies to me in different subthreads, in which you were not previously involved. I haven't worked out an entirely satisfactory way of dealing with that, but I have trouble ignoring it. I am reasonably confident, though, that HighKing and yourself have each contributed more characters to this discussion than I have, in spite of your lower edit counts.
 * Also, your comment that all (I) have done is repeat the same crap over and over and critized other people's comments doesn't really give me credit for correcting people's misreadings of NCORP, NOTINHERITED, CORPINHERIT, SIGCOV and CORPDEPTH. That was actual work to do (and inevitably consumed a few diff and you should at least be WP:CIVIL about it. Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Except I was going by how many times you had signed your comments. Which, after double checking was actually 14, but still one more then me. While no one is accusing you of WP:BLUDGEON and your accusing me of doing it. When you've had the same amount of comments. So, my point still stands. Either apply the rule to everyone who is "over commenting" (whatever bar that is) or shove off and don't chide other people about rules your ignoring. As far as WP:CIVIL goes, I'm not a fan of hypocrisy, especially ToughPigs version of it, and I don't consider pointing the finger at or singling out a single user for something that other people are doing and way worse "civil." 100% I'm into civility, but I'm not going to just be mister polite and be the only one to get shit for things other people are doing and way worse. Thanks though. You want civility, cool. Then be civil. If you want to not BLUDGEON, cool. Then don't BLIDGEON yourself and don't single people out for it. If not though, don't expect other people to be civil if your not willing to and don't expect to be the only loud voice in the room. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 15 times. -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What in the name of God, just decide if the article is notable or not! You argued on stupid things such as someone's tone or apperance! So less on the article itself, and if you did, you were wrong! The article is NOT notable. Sources about the articke are mostly Trivia or unreliable. They dont point exactly to the company, but to the game, and this article is about the company, not the game! It will be notable in the future, but until then, it has to be redirected and protected against recreation (I learnt that from WP:ATA. So please stop! You are wasting your precious time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Beagle (talk • contribs) 07:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, all they have done is repeat the same crap over and over and critized other people's comments is simply not a civil comment, particularly when untrue as in this case. And my original BLIDGEON complaint came when you posted these edits making the same misreading of NCORP (that coverage of the "subject" only counts if it is the main "subject" of the article) - in two places so that I felt required to respond to both. Since then, HighKing did the exact same thing about CORPDEPTH (in three places, two following my comments), which was equally frustrating but I hope to have handled it better. Oh, and Billy Beagle - Notability isn't a property of articles. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are insanely wrong, Newimpartial. Isnt just notability a property of articles, but it is also the most important. Notabiliy is the most important property of an article. Only, and ONLY notabiliy will keep an article alive. Read WP:N, WP:1ST, and WP:TRIV. Billy Beagle (talk) 8:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Billy, you are contradicting WP:ARTN, which states: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article ... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Also, I think insanely wrong is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Please don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, but improve: There is no merit to delete this article, it needs to be improved, yes, but it is inherently notable. Deletion makes no sense, when it could easily be improved and rewritten. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, the current version is the improved and rewritten version. At this point doing any more "improving" of it would be like trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. The only option to make it "better" IMO would be turn it into a stub, but then it would be right back in the same place it was when the AfD was started. Unfortunately, the sources and miss-leading way they are being used (which is really the only way it seems like they can be used) doesn't allow for anything beyond that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The company has significant (per CORPDEPTH) coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources and therefore meets NCORP. The rest, as they say, is noise. Newimpartial (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And this is what I was talking about with you repeating yourself. Everyone here knows you think it passes NCORP and CORPDEPTH. You repeating it 10 times isn't helpful and is 100% WP:BLUDGEON. If your going to comment in AfDs, at least make it something different then what you've already said and helpful to the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep the developer is discussed in a number of articles. Some of these are in passing, but many are non-trivial. And frankly the article is pretty solid. I agree it is borderline from a WP:N viewpoint, but I think it's over the line by enough I'm not even weak. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: What the other pro-deletion users said. I couldn't find any articles focused on the company itself. Also, the way it's written is indeed pretty advert-y, and I have concerns that some users opposing deletion are just trying to promote the company. Cpotisch (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The company produced a game that became popular worldwide. As they only produced a notable game, it is normal that when finding articles about Innersloth, there is also mention of Among Us. However, the sources also talk about the developers, not just limited to the game. Gamesutra speaks about the Among us 2 cancellation, but it also talks a little about the company when it touches on its future plans. The same with CBR, and others sources. But the article needs improves. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The following are some points that may have been talked about a good bit, but I would like to chime in with my view on the things that I have yet to address. To sum up what I'm about to say, we need to focus on WP:SIRS, content in articles about Among Us doesn't make InnerSloth notable just because they are mentioned a whole bunch (they just happen to be the developers), and there is a source that's been buried in the discussion that should be more seriously considered that may make a progression to considering InnerSloth as notable.


 * WP:CORPDEPTH states, "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant. Views, hits, likes, shares, etc. have no bearing on establishing whether the coverage is significant. Similarly, arbitrary statistics and numbers (such as number of employees, amount of revenue or raised capital, age of the company, etc.) do not make the coverage significant. For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO." Additionally, one guideline that doesn't seem to have been brought up as often is that WP:SIRS states that multiple sources must independently meet the criteria of being an independent, reliable, secondary source that significantly covers the company.


 * Collectively, the sources would clearly pass the requirements, as one can see from the Wikipedia article. However, it doesn't seem that any single source meets the criteria on its own. I admit I didn't search for sources that meet the criteria the most throughly, but I looked at 10-15 sources from Wikipedia that seemed the most likely to contain significant coverage on InnerSloth, based on the title and the context of which the source was included. The only ones that had significant coverage (content about how InnerSloth made Among Us does not count as information on InnerSloth, it's information solely on Among Us, and per WP:NOTINHERITED, this doesn't count as significant information on InnerSloth), aside from their LinkedIn page, are sources 31 and 32. Source 32 is just an interview (mostly a primary source) between developers and a YouTuber. Source 31 is similarly an interview, and it also may not be a reliable source (though I'm not sure).


 * It is important to keep in mind that Among Us is a huge phenomenon: it is extremely viral, and it was created by very small developers. Because of this, there is bound to be a good lot of content on the developers. However, each source only makes small remarks on the developers. Most of the content is just a name drop when Among Us and the developments to the game are being discussed. In order for the article on InnerSloth to stay, there needs to be multiple independent, reliable, and secondary sources that significantly cover InnerSloth in some depth.


 * However, after a quick scan of sources mentioned in this AfD, I found a single source that may count as a qualifying source. Newimpartial linked 2 sources in one reply. One of the sources was merely content of how Among Us was developed (just because InnerSloth happened to be the creators of Among Us doesn't mean they are notable, and the fact that their names were mentioned doesn't mean anything). However, this source seems much more likely to be considered. It is an independent, reliable, secondary source. And it seems to signficantly cover InnerSloth in ways that diverge enough from Among Us to be considered content on the company itself in some form. I think we should discuss whether this source significantly covers InnerSloth. Of course, we need multiple sources that meet the requirements, but I think it would help to take one step at a time. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of points here that bear further comment, I think. First of all, the statement content in articles about Among Us doesn't make InnerSloth notable by itself would be misleading, because I think we all know by now that the policy-relevant question per CORPDEPTH isn't what the main topic of the article is, but whether the article contains sufficient material about the company to meet CORPDEPTH and SIRS. But then the Geico Gecko says that such content doesn't make InnerSloth notable just because they are mentioned a whole bunch (emphasis added), so if this is read literally, as a restrictive clause, then it is entirely valid. If these sources are confined to trivial mentions that do not meet the significance test, then they do not contribute - but this is not measured by the topic of title of the source, a mistaken argument made at some length at this AfD.
 * However. GeicoGecko does make a new argument against policy, namely that content about how InnerSloth made Among Us does not count as information on InnerSloth. I don't see any basis in SIRS or CORPDEPTH for this claim - RS information about the development decisions InnerSloth made is just as relevant to the company's notability as the product decisions Ford Motor Company has made to its. (A quite different argument could be made based on this, namely that Notability does not guarantee an article and that while the company is notable, the information about it would be better presented in an article integrated with its major product than in a standalone. However, the existence of other products and the trajectory of decisions about the About Us lead me to the tentative conclusion that a separate article is best - anyway, that isn't about the Notability of the company, which was the issue raised in this AfD.)
 * Also, the citation the Geico Gecko gives from CORPDEPTH leaves out what I think is the most interesting part: For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO. Further, the significance is not determined by the reputation of the source. For example, a 400-word article in The Village Voice is a lot more significant than a single-sentence mention in The New York Times (Emphasis added). The example of a more significant source - not a threshold, but an example, presumably a clear pass - is set at 400 words in a niche publication. Each of the sources I linked earlier include more than 400 words that are about the company, its decisions and its corporate environments (excluding quotations), and this is not listing facts - the kind of information CORPDEPTH}} tells us to discount, but akin to discussing the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership.
 * The additional source that the Geico Gecko has examined in depth (thank you!), plus the other two I linked above, should make the NCORP pass entirely clear. Newimpartial (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "A mistaken argument made at some length at this AfD." Or more likely your just misconstruing things and interpreating the guidelines wrong. Anyway, the last bit of your message is wrong. It doesn't "clearly pass NCORP" just because of the two sources that you linked to aside from the in-depth one. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea that coverage of the "subject" only counts if it is the main "subject" of the article is simply a mistake, and is contradicted by CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV. Take the High King's word for it if you don't believe me. And all three of the sources I mentioned meet the CORPDEPTH standard, not just the new one. Newimpartial (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You could totally put the whole "main subject of the article" thing aside though and the articles still wouldn't meet either standard. As neither relates to brief mentions. CORPDEPTH has the word "DEPTH" in it for a reason. The guideline even says "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." Which you keep ignoring while repeating the whole thing about how the article doesn't have to be only on the company when that was only one part of what was being argued. Just like you ignored me when I asked you how sentences like "They are "fueled by excitement" qualifies as Significant detailed coverage, or for that matter how it isn't "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject." Let alone what's "depth" about it. I'd like an answer. Since 99% of what your claiming passes CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV is exactly that kind of superficial, surface level thing. Or are you going to claim the actual content of the articles don't matter? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, the two articles I am talking about give information about the company's decisions and environment, of the same kind as the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership - the examples given in CORPDEPTH. Four hundred words or more about the decisions made by the developers, their motivations, and the context within which they made those decisions cannot be trivial or incidental coverage by any policy-compliant standard, and both of the articles I mentioned - in addition to the third one - meet that standard. I have already given examples of how this information can be used, such as documenting InnerSloth's plans and hopes around the About Us sequel followed by the decision to cancel the sequel and concentrate on the original property. Newimpartial (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's laughably false and patently wrong by every measure. Anyway, as has been stated about 100 times now and should obvious the article is about the company. Not the game. So, 100% "the decisions made by the developers, their motivations, and the context within which they made those decisions" in relation to the game is trivial in an article about the company. Even if this was the Among Us article though, your assertion would still be extremely laughable. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Adamant1, what do you think of the article I suggested to pass WP:SIRS? Of course, a single article won't make InnerSloth notable, but it would certainly be a significant step to confirming InnerSloth's notability if it counts as significant coverage. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * All Among Us content is about Among Us. It has nothing to do about the company of InnerSloth except for in ways that WP:NOTINHERITED addresses. For example, if an article talks about Among Us 2 being cancelled without mentioning InnerSloth once, how is that any different from if the article described the cancellation of Among Us 2 in a way that expressed active decisions from InnerSloth? To say "InnerSloth decided to cancel Among Us 2 because Among Us 1 was popular" should not be any differently taken into account then "Among Us 2 was cancelled due to the popularity of Among Us 1." Treating them different is to argue for InnerSloth's notability based on inherited notability of AmongUs, or to argue for notability based off of the company simply being mentioned. This methodology of analyzing articles is the minimum critique of notability needed to avoid violating NOTINHERITED. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Your statement All Among Us content is about Among Us sounds theological to me. If what you mean by it is that content about the company's decisions and the experiences of its personnel with respect to the game (or something like that) count only to the Notability of the game and not the company, I would like to see a policy basis for that please. It certainly isn't in WP:NOTINHERITED or WP:INHERITORG. And I have never remotely suggested that InnerSloth is Notable because its games are Notable, which is what NOTINHERITED is about. But none of the INHERITED policies suggest that coverage of a company in relation to its products is excluded from demonstrating the Notability of the company, so long as the sources satisfy CORPDEPTH with respect to the company. In fact, a company's decisions in relation to its products are routinely included in the DUE coverage of the company; I have been using Ford Motor Company as my example above, but Apple Inc. might be even more clear about this. Also, the Geico gecko's assertion that the content of the sources I mentioned would not be "different" - I assume, in the sense of removing information - by removal of the mentions of InnerSloth and its employees seems totally implausible to me for the articles in question. I agree with the principle of the test - that name dropping does not contribute to Notability - but find the Geico gecko's interpretation of how it would apply in this case, err, puzzling. Newimpartial (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am saying that developments on a game isn't about the company. InnerSloth is merely mentioned in the articles about Among Us. InnerSloth actively made these developments and improvements to the game. InnerSloth actively created the game. However, information about the game is simply not information about the company. There needs to be content about the company itself. You make a good point that perhaps the experience of the personnel with respect to the game may be considered content on the topic of InnerSloth, of which only the depth may need to be discussed. Your argument using Ford trucks and Apple watches don't seem to make sense, it seems backwards such that Ford and Apple are more notable than their products, and seems irrelevant (I may simply misunderstand this argument). As of my argument of removing mentions of InnerSloth, I simply make my point that the only reason InnerSloth is being mentioned is because they are the creators of the game. Any single mention could be removed. I do not argue that it would be desirable or plausible for an article to remove all mentions of InnerSloth, but rather that the mentions of the general idea of the company isn't necessary. When the mention of the company is necessary (or very implausible to remove a particular mention) to say what needs to be said (e.g. The company's reaction to the Among Us memes), that's when it is content on the company itself. This isn't something in any particular guideline, but to deem something as content on the company, this seems the best way to do so. I don't see how this methodology could be significantly flawed.


 * With such a methodololy, content that is more closely related to Among Us can be considered, relative to the Delete and Redirect people have tended to argue. This includes the reaction to the fanbase and the dedicated backstory behind Among Us. Perhaps then, it may be much more likely that another source aside from the IGN source provided by you may qualify as significant coverage. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems that WP:SIRS, in respect to consideration of WP:NOTINHERITED, are the most likely guidelines to require the deletion of this article, and that if these requirements are met, it is likely that this article will remain. If that is true, then I have much higher hopes that we will be able to keep this article after some more discussion.


 * Does anyone that thinks we should Delete or Redirect the article have any thoughts on this? I believe that this reasoning may be a bit too lenient, but as of the moment can't think of any reason why it would be such. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Right cite (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There are multiple independent, reliable non-trivial sources. And I will parrot the fact that Among Us'' is clearly notable. Lightburst (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Unlike my previous argument, I would like to note that, yes, this company is mostly notable for Among Us, but that case doesn't make it NOT notable. Mojang, for most of its history, was only a developer of Minecraft, and yet they're considered notable. To delete this article would be a double standard. RobotGoggles (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ambox warning pn.svg — Duplicate vote: RobotGoggles (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Comment Of course now all the inclusionist ARS drones who lack any kind of scrupples about this are going to come along to vote keep like a bunch of lemmings and derail the whole thing. Hopefully the closer considers who's voting and discounts votes that don't make a good policy based arguement (the same goes for delete voters btw. There just isn't a "deletion squad" group though). Also, Right cite posting about the AfD everywhere, mostly in places that are likely to pull in keep voters, after it seemed like the article would probably be deleted or redirected is totally a form of a WP:CANVAS and shouldn't be allowed. The guidelines are pretty clear that "recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group" shouldn't be done. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Among Us for now. It has been well demonstrated that Among Us is notable, and that its developers have received coverage through that game. What has not -- insofar as I have seen so far -- been demonstrated is that the notability extends beyond Among Us. That doesn't mean they aren't notable, but that we don't need two articles based on the same coverage. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The well referenced article shows ample valid information about the company that would not fit in an article for just one of their games. Reliable sources mention information about the company itself and the three people created these games.   D r e a m Focus  00:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Kindly assume good faith. When the article was nominated it looked like this.  Hardly anything to it.  Now it has developed into something far greater.  Anyone who voted to delete/redirect it before it was massively expanded, should take another look at it now.   D r e a m Focus  01:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Invoking WP:AGF when someone cites a guideline not being followed is a pretty mediocre way to deal with it. I know the WP:CANVASing is to your benefit, but you should still be against it. I would have been totally fine if this was posted to ARS at the beginning of the AfD when it wasn't close to closing and the opinions weren't essentially split or swaying toward merge/delete, but doing it at this point isn't appropriate IMO. Especially since both Rite cite and ARS clearly have a keep agenda and ARS isn't a neutral Wikiproject. The important thing is that the process is fair (whichever way the AfD goes). Which has nothing to do with WP:AGF. It isn't fair to the process to post about the AfD on a pro keep forum a day before the AfD is closing, after vigrious discussion, just because things aren't going the way the person wants them to. Also, a good portion of the delete/merge voters have been involved in the article during the "improvement" process (including me) and still stick by their original votes, because it being "expanded" hasn't actually dealt with the original issues with it and has led to the article having other problems, like being an advert and a fork of Among Us. Plus there's been delete/merge votes since the changes anyway. So, the answer here isn't that everyone should just take another look at the article and change their votes to keep "because expansion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment: It looks very likely that this will be closed a "no consensus", just because it's going to be impossible for the closer to make any sense out of who's saying what. Who wants to deal with all this mess? If people want a closer to pay attention to who's voting and weigh their arguments, then you shouldn't post huge paragraph after paragraph, and stop responding to everyone who says something that you disagree with. It bloats the discussion, until it's impossible for anyone to come up with a rational consensus. Stating your argument concisely and then getting out of the way is key for making sure that your point gets across. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Kind of like how doing a running commentary on how many times someone has commented like you have done would make things hard to parse through. Although, you and the ARS crowd benefit it being hard to read more then anyone else. So, if this does end in no consensus or keep feel free to pat yourself on the backs for a job well done. That said, most of the comments were pretty concise and I'm sure the ones that weren't aren't going to effect the outcome that much anyway. Personally, I'd be totally fine with a no-consensus close. At least then it could be contested or re-nominated easier. As it's clear there has been WP:CANVASing etc etc going on. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete After reading the article, checking all of the references, and reading this very long discussion. It was very clear that the company is not notable and the article subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. Charmk (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.