InnerSloth – No consensus. I count 9 "overturn" to 17 "endorse" opinions, and that proportion is not significantly different if one discounts the opinions that are trying to re-litigate the AfD on the merits. With respect to the arguments made, the "overturn" side thinks that the closer improperly disregarded that the "delete" side's sourcing concerns had been addressed, while the "endorse" side thinks that the closer correctly recognized that the sources are not about the company at issue, but about its game. It's not for me to decide who's right in this matter, which is why the "redirect" closure remains in force for lack of consensus to overturn it. Sandstein 20:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Overturn Extreme bias from closer. clearly Spartaz was the wrong closer to close this contentious AfD. Openly discriminating against participants - labeling participants with terms clearly meant to diminish their involvement - and taking pride in doing so. Spartaz was openly angry, frustrated and then refused any discussion about what is clearly a biased close ... Perhaps the closer should take a break from closing? I would have started this !vote with "all due respect" but usually an insult follows that goofy statement - so I skipped it. For my own !vote rationale - I found this AfD in my normal AfD activity, and my rationale is legitimate. I would like an unbiased closer to consider my !vote and redo this close. As far as content is concerned a redirect is no different than a delete - and this article should not be deleted. Lightburst (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I did not participate in the AFD discussion. But the article's before and after examples are telling. The disregard for the 70 cited sources is bizarre. When deleted the article had been vastly improved. Not what it was when proposed for deletion. WP:HEY. I would have voted Keep for those reasons. I chose not to participate, as the proper outcome was clear and it was going to be kept.
The raw !vote tally was 15 Keep, 9 Delete and 6 Redirect. N.b.There are 3 duplicate votes by the same voters for alternative outcomes: 2 for delete and redirect (they voted in the alternative) and 1 for keep and redirect. Hypothetically, if those 3 were not considered, the tally would be 14 KEEP, 7 DELETE, and 3 REDIRECT. There was a clear consensus to Keep. Alternatively, if this is somehow interpreted as a push, AFDs ought to default to keep under these circumstances. Redirect was not in the running. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect (I voted in the AfD. If me voting on this is problem ignore it). Mainly because whatever the vote numbers were, most of the reasons given for the keep votes were extremely weak or completely irrelevant. A few examples were saying the article should be kept because the subject of article is important, they make a popular game in China, that it would be a waste of time to delete the article now since the company will be notable in a month, the developers deserve a page, they have made two popular games, Etc. Etc. So whatever the raw vote numbers are, a good portion of the keep votes were garbage because they didn't involve a discussion of the guidelines, sourcing, or anything approaching a good keep rational. Only one keep vote (I might have missed one), out of the fifteen total, actually made a thought out, guideline based keep argument. So, turning the article into a redirect was clearly the right thing to do.
Also, Right cite edited the article 172 times during the AfD. Which was more then enough to "improve" it. Instead, they just turned it into an advertish semi-content of Among Us. Whatever new sources that got added by it were of the same low quality as the already existing ones and a lot of the delete voters were either keeping track of (and evaluating) the new sources as they were being added to the article or they voted after the sources were added and therefore reviewed them before voting. So, it's not really relevant that the article has changed since the start of the AfD. It wasn't like everyone voted on the first day and then never at the AfD or article again. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have not AGF in the AfD just as the closer has not AGF. and fyi: you have made 26 separate posts on the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And your point? Do you have an actual argument or is that it? Anyway, like I said in the AfD, my comment about Rite cite getting ARS involved at the last minute had nothing to with AGF and there's no limit on how many times someone can comment either. Nor is either of them (or anything else along those lines) things you or other ARS people care about out side of using them to make vapid, disingenuous arguements with. And those the only kind of arguements you people ever seem to make. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - DRV rationale has to do with the state of the article, which had nothing to do with the reason for deletion/redirection. Nobody demonstrated that this is a notable subject apart from its notable game to the extent that it overcomes both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOPAGE, and the closing statement reflects that. Surprising number of keeps with 100-400 total edits, including SPAs for this game/company. Based on the success of the game, it's likely there will be cause to recreate it at some point in the future, and perhaps a copy could be moved to Right cite's userpage to reassess sometime down the road, but that's a separate issue from this DRV. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) I am the nom of the AfD, so I won't !vote here (although it's pretty clear what my opinion is). The closer accounted for !voter source review towards GNG and the primary argument of NOTINHERITED. Could they have worded the closure better? Very much so. But I see nothing wrong with the closer's conclusion if one ignores their comments about the participants. I can sympathize with the closer because the AfD saw a massive heated back and forth with lots of uncivil attitude. That's no reason to make personal remarks as a closer. But the closer also never claimed to base their main decision off the participant behaviour: "What I get from this discussion [..]". They did single our ARS participants, but the closer also stated their conclusions was based on their arguments being similar to those previous in the discussion. Personally, I might have closed this as a merge due to lack of content but sufficient sourcing to keep the material, but given the difficulty of such an AfD, I would see anything from "delete/redirect" to "no consensus" as a valid closer's conclusion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to keep I participated in the discussion. The sources are, as I noted in the discussion, not amazing wrt to the company, but there is plenty about the company in those articles to A) meet WP:N and B) write a good article. The 2nd shouldn't be hugely debatable--we have a good article. The first *is* debatable, but numeric consensus was clear and the claim is reasonable. [1], mentioned in the AfD is, IMO, more about the company than the product. [2] is an interview, but mostly about the company and their processes. [3] has a fair bit about the company. It is by no means open-and-shut. If the !vote had gone toward delete, that would have been a reasonable way to close it. But it didn't and the case against notability isn't so strong as to override the numeric consensus. I probably would have weakly endorsed a NC reading, but keep is the better reading. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cute, I like it. That said, yes, there are two parts to considering a close. One is which argument is most grounded in policy (and guidelines). The other is how the !vote falls in terms of numbers. Some !votes can be tossed, but per IAR, a large number of non-policy-based !votes can override a small number of policy-based ones in most cases (BLP being one area where we are much more strict). In this case, the numbers were on one side and that side had a reasonable policy-based viewpoint. Honestly, part of the problem is that our standard outcomes are just different for companies than for games. The corp people want coverage well in excess of the GNG. The game folks are generally happy with coverage that reaches the GNG, even if just barely. Here those two cultures are intersecting and their expectations aren't the same given the same facts. I'd claim that "scrapes by" is, in fact, sufficient. Pretty much by definition. And we are there. There are multiple independent and reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage of the company. Open-and-shut IMO as this meets the letter of the GNG. But recently we've been deleting articles about people who are in the headlines of the NYT and have coverage spanning many months. So who knows? We seem to be leaving the era of the GNG and moving to area-specific requirements, something I think is unwise. Hobit (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, simply counting the number of people who wrote keep in bold letters will not get the page undeleted. AfDs are not just simply a poll or vote count, they are an opportunity to discuss and provide arguments using policies or guidelines to delete the page. The number of people saying keep is not a determiner of whether the article will be kept. This is one of the first rules of AfD and the reason for stuff like Template:Not a vote (which, in retrospect, I probably should have added to the AfD page). Also, whether or not the article was "improved" does not change whether or not the subject passes general notability guideline. The consensus was that despite the creation of Among Us, Innersloth has not shown significant coverage through reliable independent sources and is not notable. Therefore, the page was redirected to Among Us. Simply saying that there is a lot of work on the page is not a substitute for passing GNG and comes off as WP:PLEASEDONT. While this AfD was certainly very heated, I think that it was closed properly (the outcome was to redirect for a while) and do not see any reason to overturn it. Naleksuh (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is there is consensus for deletion even though there was numeric consensus for keeping because? I don't think you added anything to this discussion other than saying "I like the outcome". It's utterly clear that Innersloth has penty of reliable independent sources. Heck, just counting the reliable, independent, sources that mention Innersloth in the title of the article gets us well past "multiple". So your claim seems bogus on the face of it. There *are* good arguments for deletion (sources don't cover IS in enough depth, they cover the game instead). But sources not existing is clearly just wrong. And at the least [4] seems to be a darn fine source on IS. The rest are borderline and I understand how people may feel they aren't enough. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I checked all of the references, the article subject fail WP:GNG - the game is notable, but the company is not. Charmk (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn While I voted to redirect, I think that the discussion should have kept going. There has been much development in the Keep argument, (ironically of which has been partly developed by me) that has yet to be properly discussed, and my arguments that showed progression to keep has yet to recieve any feedback, possibily because the delete/redirect side simply wanted the debate to close without listening to the other side. We should take ALL arguments into consideration, and not simply ignore the arguments we don't want to hear. However, the quantity of votes for keep and redirect/delete should not be as heavily considered due to the viralness of the game. People like Right Cite are clearly biased to keeping the game due to their liking of the game, and in turn want to keep the company article from being deleted. Similarly, I found that people like Adamant stuck with their opinion and was completely unwilling to even consider the opposing side as legitamate. If this discussion doesn't reopen, it should at least be reconsidered by a closer that isn't as emotionally biased as the current closer clearly was. Additionally, Adamant (the most avid Delete/Redirect voter) has clearly attacked Keep arguments throughout most of the discussion, but the second I argue in favor of Keep, he decides to not respond to the new arguments. Over the last couple of days, it seems that the delete/redirect arguments have grown weaker. I strongly suggest that the discussion open back up for consideration of the new arguments brought up by me and Newimpartial, as the earlier weak arguments to keep the article have mistakingly been overemphasized. While there is a significant chance that InnerSloth will still be deemed unnotable, I think that the discussion has morphed in a way that makes it necessary to still seriously consider and discuss the notability of InnerSloth. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse based solely on policy arguments, clearly the correct decision.Onel5969TT me 19:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A) we don't do things solely on policy arguments (and A1, there are NO policy arguments here, only how guidelines apply, but I assume that's what you meant) and B) we do count noses as part of finding consensus. That's what IAR *is*. I don't think we need to reach out to IAR, this clearly meets the GNG. But yeah, numbers do matter especially in matters of opinion. And if coverage is "trivial" or not is exactly that, an opinion. Hobit (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist, Clearly there has been a substantial shift as the discussion progressed in favour of Keep, and I reckon another relist is probably necessary to determine a consensus, or perhaps to determine that there is not one. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep (or No Consensus) Yes, I participated in the AfD, as did other editors who have !voted above for every possible resolution. To me it looked like one of the sloppiest and most inappropriately motivated closes I have seen, and I have trouble understanding why the closer bothered of they hated reading the AfD so much. I believe that This is officially the worst AFD discussion I have closed in years. There are some participants here who should hang their head in shame was targeted in part at me, because of I have had my quota of green coloured text for the week at the end of the close, but how are we supposed to resolve policy questions as they apply to an AfD without quoting policy? And if all they got from the discussion apart from a headache is that company notability is not inherited from a product - which is true enough, but wasn't really under debate - then they seemed to have ignored all of the interpretive questions regarding WP:NORG, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:INHERITORG that were actually at stake in the AfD. Without taking the policy questions seriously, no closer could have evaluated the sourcing appropriately, and what we were left with was a peevish and lackadaisical close. Btw, given how poor this discussion was, don't discuss this with me if you disagree - I mean, why bother? Newimpartial (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I mostly agree with you. Plus, I semi-agree with the TheGEICOgecko that there could have been more discussion. The problem was that me, you, and TheGEICOgecko were the only ones having any kind of meaningful discussion about it. Which isn't really a balanced way to do an AfD. Realistically most votes, keep or delete, should be thought out and based on policy. Given that it wasn't how things happened though and that things were devolving into personal attacks by ToughPigs, Lightburst, Et al. I see zero reason to relist this for more discussion. Since it probably just be more of the same. Personally I might have reconsidered things myself, but then you didn't answer the TheGEICOgecko's question about how adding the name of the company to a sentences changes the nature of what its about and you didn't answer mine about DEPTH/detail. Plus, I started having people like ToughPigs doing running commentary on how many messages I was writing. So, I'm pretty mah on the whole relisting thing. I don't feel like anything was compelling enough to warrant it and it's going to be done fairly. Except for maybe the one in-depth source you had, but there needed to be another one. I don't think an AfD is generally the best place to hash out the nuances of policies though and it felt like the discussion was going more in that direction then anything. Also, "relisting it for more discussion about the nuance of the guidelines" isn't why Rite cite opened this anyway. IMO they should have read through the AfD and waited a few days to have a better DRV argument then they do. Or Rite cite should have just left it alone and allowed someone else to do the DRV, because it was clearly going to happen anyway, but the reasons for the DRV are especially weak and it was totally premature. Really, you, me, and TheGEICOgecko could have just hashed out the whole thing on our own and then done it once we have a solid basis for it. If it turned out there was one. I'm not convinced there is though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this was my answer to both your question and TheGeicoGecko's. To me, the 400-word/explains company decisions examples in CORPDEPTH are quite obviously met by at least three articles, so I wasn't seeing anything to hash out. But, naturally, perspectives differ... Newimpartial (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So just to retiereate your position then, you think any discussion of the creation of a product or anything about one is inharently also about the company that created it, qualifies as COREDEPTH, and is detailed. No matter what the actual content or subject of the article is and even if the company isn't mentioned anywhere in the article? Because that's what it sounds like your position is. Essentially that the details of the sources don't matter and that any company is notable if it creates a product that is, because everything about a product is also inharently about the company. Feel free to correct me if I'm miss-understanding things though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial you failed to go into depth as to how the other two articles qualified as significant coverage. It didn't seem to address either mine or Adamant's concerns. If this discussion continues, it would be best for us to try to more actively acknoledge each other's arguments. There was a lot of arguments from both sides that failed to be properly addressed. To be honest, I only recently within the past 6 months started significantly editing Wikipedia, and this is my first major contribution to an AfD, so I may not be familiar enough with the process to say this, but I feel that the discussion should continue to give a second chance to these improperly addressed arguments, especially considering the recent shift to the Keep side. There is hope to keep the article, and I think we should decide once all reasonable arguments are properly addressed. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to bog down the DRV, but to each of you: "my position" is that neither of the two articles in question would retain their meaning if references to InnerSloth were removed, which is the test you, Geico Gecko proposed. And Adamant1: no, I do not think "anything about the product" is "inherently about the company", I think that when a source describes the decisions developers made concerning a product, and discusses their experience making it, that source text is also about the company. In this case, that principle gives us three sources meeting CORPDEPTH and therefore a clear NORG pass. Newimpartial (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just look at WP:CORPDEPTH to the exclusion of WP:ORGIND. The reference posted by TheGEICOgecko above, for me, does not contain "Independent Content", that is, opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The writer makes it clear that he interviewed Forest Willard, a co-founder of the company, for most of the content the article and the last paragraph is a follow-up but is based on a company announcement. WP:NCORP was updated in early 2019 to be very strict on what references can be used to establish notability. HighKing++ 12:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- yuck, what a mess. But ignoring the reams of off-topic commentary, canvassing, trolling, personal attacks on both sides there's one crucial thread running through that discussion- many participants felt that the coverage that exists is about the game and not the developer, and this criticism was not addressed. So I think covering the developer in the context of the article on the game is a reasonable outcome. Kudos to the closing administrator for not buying into the notion that consensus can't be established in the presence of a lot of off-topic yelling. ReykYO! 11:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Having read the discussion, the closing argument from Spartaz was spot on. There's currently another article where the company can can be covered, so there's no harm in the result, and the majority of the policy-based votes favoured redirection or deletion. I would protect the redirect, though. SportingFlyerT·C 13:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Article was WP:REFBOMBed to give the appearance of notability. Most of the utilized references were about Among Us, not the studio itself, which only has one notable work and has not yet satisfied WP:NCORP requirements. Frustrating that a valid close from an admin would then have an attempted overturn when the close was right on the money, we should not fall for this sore loser-ism.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) - per the closer's closing statement, Reyk, SF and Zxc. I agree with what they said and have nothing to add. Lev!vich 20:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To my reading, closes within discretion would be "no consensus", "redirect", and "merge" -- in that order of preference. Although I think we've probably got to endorse this close, I also suspect the discussion isn't over.—S MarshallT/C 22:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The discussion did not show enough sourcing to warrant a dedicated article about the developer independent from the game. Echoing the kudos to the closing admin for making a tough call. czar 23:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Not much more to be said about the discussion, but the close is not obviously in error and within the discretion of the closer. --Enos733 (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Once the ARS cabal get involved, any discussion at AfD rapidly spirals downwards into personal attacks and accusation with zero attempt to rationally discuss whether references meet NCORP guidelines. Usually ending with claims that a majority !vote defines the consensus regardless of any arguments based on policy/guidelines. The closing admin closed this correctly. HighKing++ 12:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks seem to be coming from yourself ...as usual. Well done with the b-slap Highking! Lightburst (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I did not participate in the original debate after seeing the arguments had already been made and was convinced it would be a no-consensus keep. The company article can contain company details which would be unsuited to the article on their creation. For companies that have produced notable creative work, I believe we can ascribe to the principles at WP:AUTH too, as well as the standard corporate notability standards. - hahnchen 13:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought about something along the lines of AUTH also. The problem is though that most (or all) of the coverage on Among Us is in the last month or so and the article on it had almost zero visit until extremely recently. So it is clearly a fad and therefore not a "significant" piece of work yet in the way I think AUTH intends something to be. There's also zero evidence that it will be anything beyond a fad. Likely it wouldn't even be one if it wasn't for COVID either. So, I don't think AUTH applies. Adamant1 (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I briefly participated in the original debate, and I still stand by my opinion. There isn't much for me to say here, but most of the sources in the page talk about the game with a mention or two on InnerSloth. Among Us is notable, but InnerSloth is not. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 15:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The article had two sentences and some links when it was sent to AFD [5]. It was then expanded massively [6] Plenty of valid referenced information to fill the article. The closer had no right to dismiss some of the keep votes because he dislikes the Wikiproject two of them came from. Most KEEPS came before the Article Rescue Squadron was contacted. In fact, only Lightburst and me showed up afterwards and both of us gave valid reasons to keep it. Only one other person said keep after the ARS notice, and they had already voted previously so it didn't matter. DreamFocus 22:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Quality over quantity. I'm amazed at the refbombing. Do you really need three sources to state it's a LLC?! Even if the article is redirected, it can always be created in the future when notability is present. – The Grid (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the discussion certainly had a large quantity of refbombing, I think it's necessary to focus on the last part of the discussion where we were starting to progress. The quantity of refbombing should not cover the fact that the end of the discussion was becoming productive. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closing rational seems to be a good summary of the deletion debate and the bulk of the arguments. This is especially clear when you notice that most of the back-and-forth discussion is a single editor replying to almost everyone who didn't !vote "keep".
A couple of people are bristling[7] because ARS was mentioned by name ... but what was said about them? That to be taken seriously they need to do more than post just-a-vote? Sounds fair. ApLundell (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: emailing people from the company to get them involved is pretty mediocre IMO. If that doesn't qualify as WP:CANVASing, I don't know what would. If not though, it at least shows a lack of respect for the process. Along with a weird level of saltiness over what was said about them and an odd level of desperation to get what they want. Or at least an inability to reflect on what's problematic about their actions and to correct things. Especially since the company will probably be notable in a few months anyway and it's totally fine to mention them in the Among Us article in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emailing to ask if they had been interviewed about their company or their company reviewed is not canvassing. They didn't participate in this AFD. They should know if an article about their company is being discussed here of course. My email to them was: Have you had any reviewers or interviewers give significant coverage about you or your company, not just the most popular game? So no, no canvassing, no desperation, no saltiness, or "lack of respect for the process" whatever the hell that means. I sought out information, evidence of notability. DreamFocus 05:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with you emailing them to ask about sources, but it is a problem IMO that you said it was in relation to Wikipedia and told them about the article. In your ARS comment you said "I mentioned the Wikipedia article to them" and your being intentionally miss-leading by leaving that part of the email out of your quote. Plus, you have no way of knowing if they participated in this or the AfD. It's exteremly likely they have. Although, WP:CANVAS isn't contingent on how successful you are at doing it. You wouldn't have emailed them if you thought it wouldn't have an effect though and it's completely ridiculous to claim as much. Especially since you specifically mentioned the article in your email. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
InnerSloth should not have been notified of the AfD, and the email should've been as vague as possible when asking for information in terms of what the motive was. But when did we have information that someone emailed the company? I can't find any information in the discussion about contacting the company. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no problem emailing a company and asking for sources, and even motivating them to provide those sources by contextualizing the deletion discussion. I've done this a few times. You just also want to explain the whole "don't jump in or tell people to sign up to try to keep it because you'll do yourself more harm than good" thing (in so many words). I don't think I could be mistaken for a great cheerleader of ARS, but efforts like this to find sources are exactly what ARS should be doing IMO. (I'm still in the endorse camp here btw -- just wanted to jump in to defend this practice). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEATPUPPET, which is mentioned in WP:CANVAS, "Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-Wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited." Along with "This section in a nutshell: Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people." There is also "Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example)" and "Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages" in WP:CANVAS. Taken as whole, the guidelines are pretty explicit that emailing people off Wiki for "assistance" is a no no and so is recruiting new editors. There's no other way to interpret "including enlisting assistance off-Wiki" and "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited" other then those are things that we shouldn't be doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for sources isn't "enlisting assistance" or "recruiting new editors". I don't know what DF's email said. It's possible there was canvassing. Only DF knows. But asking the company for sources is not a problem in itself. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has it occurred to no one that, given the popularity of their flagship game, the question of 'does this article have enough sourcing currently?' is relatively moot, when the answer to 'will this corporation have enough sourcing in six months?' is unquestionably affirmative. Google News has a topic for it already, even if what it contains at the moment is mostly about the game rather than its publisher. All the back-and-forth here is almost certainly moot because someone can just update the article in a couple of months using yet-to-be-published sources, and this whole exercise will have been just another futile tempest in a teapot. Overturn now, allow recreation later... whatever. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
X will be notable in Y [months/years] isn't usually a great reason for keeping an article around. Crystal ball and whatnot. Yes, it's likely, and your point isn't lost that this discussion will probably be moot down the road, but that's not a reason to keep it. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a guideline or policy-based reason, but it is a reason. WP:IAR and all that. I understand what you were trying to say here, but I think it's important to note that IAR is a pillar here. But he's not arguing to keep it. Instead, he's arguing we are wasting time. And looking in the mirror, I'm adding to that. :-) Hobit (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that Jclemens is likely correct in his comment above, see for example, The New York Times:
Lorenz, Taylor (14 October 2020), "With Nowhere to Go, Teens Flock to Among Us - YouTubers, influencers and streamers popularized the multiplayer game. Then their fans started playing too.", The New York Times, retrieved 14 October 2020, When an indie game company created Among Us in 2018, it was greeted with little fanfare. The multiplayer game remained under the radar as many games do — until the summer of the pandemic. Eager to keep viewers entertained during quarantine, Chance Morris, known online as Sodapoppin, began streaming the game, created by InnerSloth, to his 2.8 million followers on Twitch in July. By mid-September, Among Us caught on like wildfire. Suddenly major YouTube stars, TikTok influencers and streamers were playing it. PewDiePie, James Charles and Dr. Lupo have all played the game for millions.
(There was already significant coverage in more than enough reliable sources before. I'm not sure if InnerSloth has ever been mentioned before in The New York Times, but if this is the first time, it is likely not to be the last.) It will look quite silly for Wikipedia not to have an article on this topic. Right cite (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rodriguez, Salvador (14 October 2020), "How Amazon's Twitch turned an obscure game called Among Us into a pandemic mega-hit", CNBC, retrieved 14 October 2020, Developed by InnerSloth, a small studio in Redmond, Washington, Among Us was download nearly 42 million times on Steam in the first half of September, according to Safebettingsites.com, and it was downloaded nearly 84 million times on iOS and Android that month, according to SensorTower. The game hasn't left the top five on Apple's U.S. App Store since Sept. 1, and it has seen more than 158 million installs worldwide across the App Store and Google Play to date, SensorTower says.
This source, CNBC has validated the comment above about The New York Times, it appears more mainstream news media is focusing attention on both Among Us and InnerSloth. Right cite (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, WP:CRYSTAL clearly says we don't predict the future. Also, we're not re-litigating the AfD here, we're looking to see if there was a mistake made in closing the discussion, but I do want to point out neither of those sources are significant coverage of the company, but rather of the game. SportingFlyerT·C 21:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter. They are new sources. They are evidence of further discussion of both topics. CNBC is coverage of both. Right cite (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The continuing coverage is relevant to the extent that it should affect how the closer interprets the evidence presented. In cases that could go either way, it makes sense to avoid creating irrelevant barriers to the recreation of the article as the sourcing improves, in cases where this is already happening. Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with Newimpartial, especially where there are avenues to foster positive collaboration in the community to further improve the encyclopedia and continue to contribute quality content. Right cite (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do admit that I am entirely new to AfD, and somewhat new to Wikipedia in general, so correct me if I'm wrong, but to me, it doesn't seem like it's a good idea to base our discussion off of what will be notable in the future. While I think we should overturn, it shouldn't be because of plausible future notability, but rather plausible current notability that the AfD closer missed. We also shouldn't base our decision off of it looking "silly" that there isn't an article on InnerSloth. We should decide solely based off of the guidelines currently set in place, and based off of the discussion that took place. The subject may or may not become clearly notable in the future, but as of the moment, we should focus on the present tense. Additionally, this is not really the place to discuss notability, but rather the decision that was made. This current discussion is in an effort to overturn the ruling, and is not a second chance to prove notability. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the best way forward would be to endorse the redirect for now. Then someone like Rite cite or whoever that thinks new sources are good enough to recreate it should create an article in their user space and submit it AfC when it's up to par and different enough sourcing wise from the current article. There's no telling when that will be though and there's zero reason there should be a rush to recreate it. As someone said in the ARS discussion about it, there's no reason the company can't be briefly discussed in the Among Us article until things are good enough to warrant a separate article. Especially since all the sourcing that talks about the company is in relation to the game. This isn't a black and white thing with only one "best" option or way for people to find out information about the company. IMO talking about the company in the Among Us article for now and doing an AfC on a new article eventually is a perfectly fine option that should satisfy everyone. Otherwise, people are just being stubborn and not good faithed about this. I know certain people think that the only thing we should do is "contribute quality content" to articles (whatever that means), but doing so isn't always the best way to improve Wikipedia, or even the article that is having "quality content" (again, whatever that means) added to it. There's more to this then just throwing everything that exists at an article and calling it "good quality" because "content." --Adamant1 (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: InnerSloth listed as publisher of worldwide top downloads for September 2020 -- above bothAlibaba and Amazon, as reported by Digital Information World and SensorTower.
Ahmed, Arooj (15 October 2020), "Google, Facebook Voodoo: These are the top mobile publishers of September 2020 (chart)", Digital Information World, retrieved 15 October 2020, Rest of the Mobile Publishers includes Microsoft, Innersloth, Outfit 7, Crazy labs and Inshot. There are many other Mobile publishers but these ten are the most popular ones in 2020.{{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
Please note that both news articles do not mention Among Us, only InnerSloth itself. Right cite (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that as you've been told a few times the purpose of this is to determine if the close was defective. Not to relitigate the AfD. By you doing that and not taking the advice you have been given about the best way to deal with this, it's pretty likely that your just working against yourself and making it that much harder to recrate the article when it becomes appropriate to do so. I'm pretty most people wouldn't have a problem with you drafting the article and sending it through an RfC when it's appropriate to do so. You should accept it as an option, instead of trying to push recreation in the way your doing. Or, just let this work itself out and recreate the article in a month. Both are perfectly fine options. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm given you solid advice about the best way to deal with this and I support you drafting it. The way your acting about me supporting the article being drafted just goes to show how unreasonable your being about this. That said, it's not WP:BLUDGEONing for me to say what I think the best options are or to point out that your writing messages that aren't constructive to this. Nice try though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors other than myself brought up the behavior of User:Adamant1 as disruptive and WP:BLUDGEON in the AFD itself. User:Adamant1 appears to not have taken any of their constructive feedback to heart to attempt to improve his behavior patterns, instead choosing to ignore their feedback and continue the WP:BLUDGEON disturbing behavior patterns. Right cite (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was really only two people who I have repeated problems with. Whereas, way more people said the exact same thing to you, both in the AfD and here. So, maybe you shouldn't throw stones in glass houses. Anyway, why are so unwilling to draft the article, improve it, and then eventually put it through an AfC? I might be willing to change my vote if you are and I'm sure other people would to. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether Adamant is bludgeoning, that doesn't mean you can shift the blame. This is clearly not the place to further argue notability. Please do not speak of the notability of InnerSloth on here, as that is not the purpose of this discussion. If you feel that the closed discussion should be reconsidered, please argue why the decision was unfair without progressing the discussion on InnerSloth's notability. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what "change my vote" means in this context, but procedurally what would be needed in this forum would be for a bunch of us to change our !votes to "Overturn to relist" and then potentially to vote to Draftify at the relisted AfC. Just looking at this in terms of process. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought one of the possible outcomes of DRVs was that the article could be drafted. It has to be drafted somewhere though and it's kind of a moot point if Right cite is unwilling to accept it as an option. Unless it can be drafted to someone else's user space, but Right cite seems like the main (or only) person interested in the article and retaining it at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although, now that I think about it drafting it with a redirect would be exactly the same as just a redirect. Which would pretty much be indorsing the outcome of the AfD. So....Then I say to Right cite, accept the redirect for now and just draft it, I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a policy-compliant outcome as well, so long as the draft is submitted to AfC in a reasonable time (say six months from now) - too soon and people might get feisty about the AfD result being too recent, too late and an overzealous soul might consider it a "stale draft" and delete. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm thinking. It likely won't be recreated on a whim between now and then anyway. If it is, then who recreates it is just risking the article going back to AfD and being a permanent redirect or salted. So, drafting it is really the best option. Also, having it prewritten before the time runs out and peer reviewed also saves time later and helps insures it won't just go back to AfD again or something. At least that's my thinking. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial:, of course I'd be happy to work on a draft to further improve the article if given the opportunity to do so. It's just sad for the efforts put in so far to date, to not be utilized for a while, because it's already a notable topic today. Right cite (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus. The only question is whether the close was a valid conclusion by an unbiased closer based on the editor inputs and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, the closer apparently had a bias and should not have closed the discussion. I concur with User:Lightburst. Perhaps the closer should have criticized the statements of the editors whom he said should hang their heads in shame, as a participant in the discussion rather than as the closer. The AFD had multiple viewpoints expressed that address policies and guidelines so that, in the absence of significantly stronger arguments for one viewpoint than others, this is what is meant by No Consensus. A Relist would be acceptable also, or finding another closer, but the discussion went on long enough that it can be closed, and not with an expression of anger. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only a few ARS people voted, it was extremely late in the AfD, and whatever was said about them doesn't negate the fact that the keep voters arguments (including theirs) were extremely weak. There's also zero evidence that the closer decided to go with redirecting the article purely because of two people from ARS participating it. Nowhere in the closing comment was such an assertion made. "this AfD sucks" doesn't automatically equate to "I'm closing this a redirect because I distain ARS people." Ultimately, closers should be able to express whatever opinions they feel like expressing in the closing comments and action shouldn't be taken based on what closer says. Unless it's 100% clear based on their comments that they are acting in a bias manor. Which simply isn't the case here. It would be extremely unfair to everyone who participates in AfDs (including Lightburst and the ARS people) if their outcomes can be reversed simply by someone (in this case Lightburst) taking offensive to something that was said. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1 has said, Ultimately, closers should be able to express whatever opinions they feel like expressing in the closing comments and action shouldn't be taken based on what closer says. Unless it's 100% clear based on their comments that they are acting in a bias manor (sic.). I don't think this is correct per policy, and sets far too low a bar for the closer. An AfD close is supposed to reflect the policy-based and sources-based arguments made in the AfD discussion, and because the closer didn't like the discussion (as is clear from the language of the close), it seems that they set aside all of the policy-based arguments and looked briefly at the sources, based only on their own preconceptions about policy. We are supposed to do better than this at AfD, and none of the ILIKEIT endorse !votes can change that reality. Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Adamant may be trying to get at something, and either terribly conveyed his point, or isn't thinking about it too carefully. We should consider that we may be biased to overturn in part based off of the closer's harsh and emotionally driven critique. It would be best to look past the weaknesses and trivial opinions of the closer's reasoning, and focus on the strengths. That's what matters. While I personally still think that the closer was clearly biased, this aspect is certainly something to consider. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly I wasn't thinking about it to carefully. Although, I think you conveyed what I was trying to get at. Thanks for doing so. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Strong, courageous, and correct closure. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
