Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buka Entertainment


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  08:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Buka Entertainment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Did a WP:BEFORE search, and didn't see a great deal. There is potentially something here, but link is broken and this in Russian, however it's hardly super notable. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 14:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Welp, I am the original creator of the article, but that was back in 2006, and I haven't touched it since. From what I know, Buka is one of the larger video game publishers in the Russian market, so it should be theoretically possible to find enough tertiary sources to establish its notability, but most of them would be in Russian, and I am honestly cannot be bothered to search for them at this time. --Koveras (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I have cited this source in the article. If someone can find more like that notability will be demonstrated. It's difficult searching in Cyrillic, at least for someone whose Russian is as rusty as mine, because there are loads of false positives for "Бука". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think the article need more expanding too. I found this link and I don't know they are useful or not. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. I hope be useful.Forest90 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Considering the fact I have heard about this publisher a lot, I am surprised to see that the company fails WP:NCORP. It requires that it has "been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." And I don't see that here. There is a great coverage of the subject by Tinybuild as cited by the nominator, but the problem is...it isn't independent of Buka, since they worked with Tinybuild (and a lot of websites citing that article). In my searches I can only find WP:ROUTINE announcements of investments, their games, name drops in books or Koch Media distribution press releases. The russian wiki article is sourced equally bad, with Vedomosti source only being salvageable and going in depth about 1C Company acquiring Buka. Which also can be just covered in 1C article, like it is. Analyzing the sources posted in the article (both users being completely unsure that even helps for the notability speaks enough):
 * Phil 1. "In 1993, Buka Entertainment entered the video game market and became not only a distributor of video game consoles from SEGA, Nintendo and Sony, but also a manufacturer of it's own games" and the page 443 after that repeats the same (with games they released) is not WP:SIGCOV.
 * Forest 1. Press release. Says so in the article plus in the url. Not independent from Buka.
 * Forest 2, 3. and 4. Collecting all these in one place, because each of those serves as a passing mention of Buka (mentioned only by it's name) in a bigger picture of them publishing Redeemer (video game). Not WP:SIGCOV, and from a glance 2. and 4. do not seem as reliable either.
 * Forest 5. Besides the fact this doesn't seem like a reliable site (I don't see editorial policy here despite the staff listing), Buka is not mentioned, not even once. Probably posted by a mistake.
 * Forest 6. Like I mentioned above WP:ROUTINE press announcement of Buka-Koch publishing. This article also relies on what Buka and Koch PR's said, making it not independent of the subject.
 * Forest 7. Literally source 6 repeated again. Same thing here as well. Clear fail of WP:NCORP. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And what about page 443 of the Wolf source, a book published by MIT Press? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have said it already. First sentence repeats the Page 440. "In 1996, Buka created it's first video game, Russian Roulette....and on" paragraph until the IT Territory segment is all "they released this in that year" (which is not related to Buka but to the games they made, which WP:SIGCOV clearly discards, and I would add WP:NOTINHERITED as well in the mix). The only usable thing out there besides the foundation date is the Bukashka part and the fact their first game was in 1996. So, even if we do count this as WP:SIGCOV by some marginal weak case (probably not thanks to WP:CORPDEPTH which requires much more than that), 3 facts that can be collected from Page 443 is certainly not enough to write an article separate from 1C Company. And as we have seen, re-redirecting it back has no purpose as it will be removed again just like it was removed this time. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If redirection is the right thing to do then that is what should be done. The fact that at editor chose to undo redirection before is no bar to reinstating it, and, if people then edit against consensus, protection or blocking are the appropriate admin tools to use, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is, at least not until the entry in 1C Company's article gets expanded. Currently, it just exists is a name drop there, so it would be vulnerable under WP:RFD criteria 10 whereas "target article contains virtually no information on the subject". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2019 (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.