Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulkhead (company)

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. No support for the nomination. Owen× ☎ 18:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Bulkhead (company)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Bulkhead (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH necessary for WP:NCORP and the article was improperly reviewed LLM AI. The first source does not contain the date "18 November 2015" and I cannot find a reliable source for it. The article is also a sponsored partner piece, which I don't think the creator noticed? ("This was posted in Bdaily's Members' News section") IgelRM (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and England. IgelRM (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I did not notice that it was a sponsored partner piece, thanks for that! ReelCosmix (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Also, could you explain more on how this fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP, because I'm not seeing how it does? Also just because it was reviewed using AI does not mean it doesn't have a place on Wikipedia; that would be the reviewer's fault and his review rights should be taken. ReelCosmix (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment Can you clarify what you mean by "improperly reviewed LLM AI" and how you know? Per WP:NOLLM, LLM usage is only allowed for 1. basic spelling and grammer review 2. careful translation from a different language. Depending on the evidence it might qualify for WP:G15 speedy deletion. Whipmywillows (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I explained it in my nomination. For example, I suspect the founding date was added by AI as there is no reliable source in the article or it was original research by the creator? Some of the wording like "not actually by Bulkhead but rather by two studios" or "quickly left when they proposed their now most popular video game" sounds like AI tone and not how someone would write on WP. But I think the creator stated above to have used AI to "review" the article, so the former appears more likely. IgelRM (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

ALSO a source that doesn't contain something is not really grounds for AFD. ReelCosmix (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability is certainly grounds for an AFD if deemed egregious enough. IgelRM (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: There are a lot of coverage from Game Developer, MCVUK and Gameindustry.biz, which are the mainstream RS covering the video game industry. While none of them is particularly in-depth, there is enough here to justify a full article for the developer. OceanHok (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  These are all VG trade sources, which is a bit more difficult for NCORP. Several of those are about their relationship with Square Enix, which counts less for Bulkhead and is better in context on Square Enix's article. I agree that the GI.biz piece with Tencent is SIGCOV, I don't see sufficient significant coverage. IgelRM (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as per the reliable sources identified above for a pass of WP:CORPDEPTH in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: There is coverage related to a recent controversy related to crunch. This would convince me to keep but I will let a reviewer decide if it worth to relist for the AI concerns. IgelRM (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't feel that is needed to be added, as it's just a small bit of controversy that lasted about two days. ReelCosmix (talk) 13:31, 6 October 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.