Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigben Interactive


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Bigben Interactive

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reason to think this distributor notable. They have no creative responsibility for any of the titles they distribute.  DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as searches are finding nothing convincingly better, still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  23:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @DGG: Did you even red the lede? They don't "distribute" - they publish. All sorts of stuff for consoles and PC since circa 2002. You know, like all the other companies in Category:Video game publishers. There are plenty of articles on publishers (as in "companies which publish other people's stuff"), and whether they have any "creative responsibility" over what they publish is a) completely unknown to you and me, and b) entirely irrelevant. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I base my comment on the contents of the article: the list of the actual games shows they have not been responsible for developing any of them..  DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's probably because the company is not a video game developer. They are a video game publisher. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * From the article: "Bigben Interactive is a French company established in 1981 which designs and distributes..." A later  sentence says "publishes and distributes". Since these two statements indicate different roles, looking at the   Euronext website,, which is the only source given, says that only 7% of their activity is  videogame related, and labels it the production of videogames. So you are right that they do seem to be a publisher are indeed a producer.
 * As for importance, cross-checking for the videogames that have articles here, Savage Skies & Space Invaders Invasion Day & Legend of Kay list only different publishers.  Cocoto Kart Racer lists it as one of the 3 publishers; Barnyard Blast: Swine of the Nigh one of the 2 publishers. Only Cocoto Platform Jumper, Cocoto Funfair & Cocoto Fishing Master list it as sole publisher. None of the 3 show any clear notability.
 * And, as I indicated at the start,neither publisher nor distributor is a creative role, but only a business  role, and much less important than developer.
 * More important, with respect to notability, the routine financial data website which is the only reference is  not sufficient   to support an article.  DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me your argument about "creative role" is a completely made up one. We have plenty of articles on companies which publish games only. Making me debate a criteria you just invented is a waste of my time. As for the game articles - Bigben is a European company and it handled European distribution for many titles. It's an entire continent and one of only three regions in the world where game publishers usually operate. I don't see why publishers in Japan or North America deserve a preferential treatment over European ones, especiall considering some of the titles they published were European exclusives (hence why Kokoto games only list Bigben - they were never released outside Europe). Moreover, they recently started investing heavily in buying up established franchises, such as WRC series of racing games (whcih was important enough to merit a Reuters report) and the Sherlock Holmes series, including the upcoming Sherlock Holmes: The Devil's Daughter - and distributing them worldwide. As for "routine financial data" - do I really need to list existing Wikipedia's articles on game publishers which lack even that? InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , three things: one, questions and statements like "did you even read the lede" and "Making me debate a criteria you just invented is a waste of my time" is not civil behaviour. I urge you to stick to the discussion, without making remarks like that. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Second, GameFAQs is not a reliable source. Third, notability of articles is based upon sources, not what you think or what Bigben might've done. That being said, I vote...  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Three answers: one, a nominator who didn't actually read the article nominated is the one who is not being civil - no, Bigben did not develop any of the games they published, they didn't grow 17 tons of oranges either nor did they produce the latest Batman movie or design a new space shuttle. Making someone waste their time debating what some article doesn't say is a tremendous waste of everyone's time. Second, I did not use GameFAQ as a source - I used it to illustrate the plethora of games published by Bigben. I just find it ludicrous how me using GameFAQ (and Reuters btw but I guess you glossed over that part) in the deletion discussion is somehow worse than the nominator looking and finding nothing at all in terms of sources. But hey at least he's wasting other people's time in a very civil manner right? Thirdly - your own search for sources proves the article is notable not because of my opinion nor for what Bigben "might have done" (although in case of publishers - of pretty much anything - what "they've done" is pretty much the only thing they are known for). But hey, the two "civil" posters who failed to use Google to find a single source about this topic but still felt compelled to join the "discussion" are actually great editors, aren't they? So I guess it's fine. It's totally cool. It's great even. Now let me utilize the lesson learned here from more experienced editors and find an article on a tractor manufacturing company so I can put it up for deletion on account of the fact that the company doesn't have any "creative responsibility" for actually inventing the tractor. Let's make Wikipedia a better place, shall we. Cheers. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, saying the nominator didn't read the article is very uncivil behaviour. You have to assume good faith, even if DGG glossed over some details, that's no reason to react this way. You can't take it personal if someone nominates an article you've started for deletion. 2) DGG's reasons might be different from yours. Not everyone agrees on what is notable enough. And no, I did not miss Reuters, and that's why I didn't brought it up. 3) No, WP:INHERIT says that a subject has to be notable by itself, not because of association. That's why there are plenty of video game developers and publishers without a Wikipedia article, while their games do have one. Yes, DGG and SwisterTwister are great editors. You realise that DGG is an admin with over 190,000 edits and SwisterTwister has over 105,000 edits? They both work tirelessly to help Wikipedia a better place, mostly just by being civil. Could you do so also in the future? Oh, and if you can find an article about a tractor company without any sources, ping in the deletion discussion and I'd be happy to help out. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the amount of somebody's edit history is no argument for - and let me say this again - inventing notability criteria like DGG did here. He did not say the article was unsourced, he said the company had no creative responsibility. His reasoning for deleting this has nothing to do with sources and everything to do with his personal idea on what should and shouldn't exist. And I did not say I would find an unsourced tractor company article, I said I would propose for deletion articles on tractor companies with no creative responsibility for inventing the tractor. And on top of that, TwisterSister, in spite of her 17 million edits on the project, failed to find anything "convincingly better" (Better than what exactly? Since DGG did not mention any source in his OP and said his problem with the article was - and let me remind you again - lack of "creative responsibility"). One would think that 295,000 edits TwisterSister and DGG have made would mean they actually understand what deletion criteria is. But no, the article was simply nominated because it wasn't created by somebody they are friends with. And lo and behold, you prove that yourself as your argument against my objections to their objections is "hey, they have 17 million edits so they must know what they are talking about", even though something "convincingly better" was found by you yourself via a "quick custom Google search". So this is not really a deletion discussion, it is a pissing contest. But hey - did your Google search fix DGG's problem in the first place? Did Google hits prove the company had some "creative responsibility"? Well did it? InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely agree: edit count doesn't make for a great editor. What matters is the willingness to work together, even if you don't agree. I see no reason to assume DGG nominated the article because of personal grounds, but you do seem to take this personal for some reason. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. A quick WP:VG/RS custom Google search brings up several reliable sources; IGN, Eurogamer, Rock, Paper, Shotgun and GamesIndustry.biz. Passes WP:GNG. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Soetermans' sources - I've been planning for months to do some major work on the articles in this area (this interconnected group of French indie devs/publishers), but I'm notoriously lax. The sourcing exists (see Soetermans' point), but it ahsn't been integrated in the article... but we all know AfD isn't cleanup. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - a combination of the sources found by Soetermans and a rather weak deletion rationale. Nominator doesn't even seem to understand what the subject is, let alone follow through on WP:BEFORE... Sergecross73   msg me  15:04, 22 April 2016 (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.