Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InnerSloth: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Newimpartial (talk | contribs) Reply to TheGeicoGecko |
||
Line 174:
:::::::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. [[User:TheGEICOgecko|'''TheGEICOgecko''']] ([[User talk:TheGEICOgecko|talk]]) 12:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
{{Od}} Your statement {{tq}}All Among Us content is about Among Us{{tq}} 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:CORPINHERIT]].
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#Products and services#Trucks]] as my example above, but [[Apple Inc.#Products#Apple watch]] 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 m 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. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
| |||