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. While there is an abundance of sources discussing the company, I see there is a rough consensus that they do not meet WP:CORPIND and/or WP:NCORP. The keep arguments either are not sufficiently addressing Innersloth itself (as opposed to Outersloth), or reference sources that are not independent. Information contained in the Innersloth article, in my opinion, could potentially be merged into Among Us, but there was no consensus to do so. (non-admin closure) Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Innersloth

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to have independent significant coverage in reliable sources. Skyshiftertalk 21:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. Skyshiftertalk 21:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per all. The article only uses 2 sources, so unless more is found, I don't see any reason to keep it around. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 22:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect this article have 2 sources, but they need redirect Boomfour (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Among Us. Obvious search term, but fails WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I've found multiple reliable sources that point to this article being notable enough. Their funding program, outersloth, has received multiple coverage from news outlets.

There's more that point to this article's notablity but we just need to add the refs in. Monathephantom (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from making an article about Outersloth the publisher. This is about Innersloth the game studio. I don't think this is admissible in this particular AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s still the same company. Outersloth is just a funding initiative by them. I found interviews articles about interviewing the folks at innersloth which also contribute to the articles notability. Monathephantom (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Among Us#Development and release. Sources generally fail WP:CORPIND, being primarily based on information provided by Innersloth, and all notable releases of the company are covered at the target article. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not impressed by the sources related to Outersloth, all of them are fundamentally based on information provided by Innersloth, which categorically fails WP:CORPIND. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Multiple independent sources establish notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monathephantom (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Plenty of sources. 🦊Heyallkatehere (Enter the foxden?) 17:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Among Us#Development and release. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. An analysis of the sources above yields the following:

Game Developer article relies entirely on information provided by the company and an executive, Tran, during a Talk, it has no independent opinion/analysis/etc. Fails ORGIND
Games Industry article reporting on the contents of a posting on the company's website and arguably, the only "independent" opinion are the final two sentence which is insufficent. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
Next article from Games Developer suffers from the same deficiencies as the first article, no independent content, just regurgitating the content of a Talk, fails ORGIND
Next Games Industry article also simply regurgitates a talk by Tran, fails ORGIND
This from 80.lv also simple repeats information about the contract discussed in the second source above, adding no independent content by way of independent analysis or opinion that is in-depth (comments like "This is quiet a nice deal" without in-depth reasoning beyond a couple of sentences is wholly insufficient). Fails ORGIND.

"Coverage" is no enough, we require particular types of coverage which meets ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. None of the sources meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.