Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RPGFan

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. Thanks to Patrick for the reasoned comments about the site. Deletion seems to have consensus, as the arguments to keep are based on the usefulness of the site and it being cited briefly in the press. The deletion of this article has no bearing on whether RPGFan is a reliable source. Fences&Windows 03:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

RPGFan

RPGFan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Does not appear notable per WP:WEB, could not find any sources to support it. Seems little more than a fansite for RPGs in general. Tagged for notability and sources since April 08. Rehevkor ✉ 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Only source I can find of potential notability is Gamerankings, as RPGfan is described by them as a "quality site", and their reviews are included in their metarating system. Unsure if this is enough to pass notability requirements however. Link to source: rpgfan statistics on Gamerankings. They list RPGfan as having done 654 reviews which are used in calculating various metaratings which sounds like a decent amount. Just thought I would throw this find in here, hope it helps. --Taelus (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep with some thought over the gamerankings usage. It could be interpreted to allow RPGFan to pass Web notability criteria 3. Additionally, on balance, it doesn't really seem to be harmful and may benefit others, so in this borderline case I would lean over towards keep. Either way, it is definately more than just a fansite, as CNET recognise it for their metarating. --Taelus (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't believe Gamerankings holds any editorial oversight over the site. For that matter I don't see any evidence of any oversight. The "company" behind it was apparently created just to legitimise the website and doesn't seem to exist on anything but paper. Rehevkor ✉ 14:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Isn't this site used a RS here? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Used as a source, yes, but reliable? I don't know for sure, but I don't believe so. There's a discussion here about it but it doesn't seem to come to any solid conclusions for reliability. And as such the reliability has not been conformed or rejected per Wikipedia:VG/RS. Saying that, I'm not sure how that's relevant to notability issues. Rehevkor ✉ 02:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

ionno. I figured that since Wiki uses them as a source and GameRankings uses them as a source it would be notable enough for its own article here. It's also been around for ages and is pretty popular and well known... so eh. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Their legitimacy as a source here is in doubt (reading through FAC archives I see it come in question quite a lot, and I have let to see it remain in a passed article), which I suppose supersedes Gameranking's opinion? I wonder who wrote "quality site" anyway, hardly detailed.. Rehevkor ✉ 14:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I have found a few places like Wired that cite RPGFan (mentioning it in passing), but no actual coverage of the site. I see nothing that meets the criteria at WP:WEB. -- Atama頭 21:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

All,

This is Patrick Gann, one of the senior staff at RPGFan. I'm not going to vote "keep" or "delete" for obvious reasons. I'd just like to share some things to help you all make your decisions.

Regarding coverage of RPGFan from other sources:

A few major sites have "acknowledged" us, by sourcing etc. Atama noted the Wired source. When we are cited for a news source, it is usually as a translation service. Our lead news writer, Chris Winkler, is a German native who also speaks English and Japanese fluently. He's on top of Japanese-language news, and as a result, RPGFan can occasionally come out and be the first English-language source of Japanese game news. Sites like Joystiq (see: http://playstation.joystiq.com/category/riviera/ or http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/09/nintendo-power-ffiv-ds-coming-in-july/), Kotaku and 1Up occasionally use our news stories (credited or uncredited) for translation from Japanese to English, or just because we were "on the ball."

As far as "site coverage," the largest thing I know of is an interview that some very small site did about me and the RPGFan Soundtracks section. See: http://www.ffomake.com/pgannint1.htm

Our site has also been quoted in trailers and on the back of box art for games. In particular, see: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/visceral-action-demons-souls/55696 @ 0:57 ~ 1:00 ... we are the third site quoted, directly after Gamespot and Eurogamer.

My semi-philosophical, semi-pragmatic thought here: if the requirement for something on Wikipedia *to have its own article* is that another source has some lengthy content ABOUT that something, then indeed, RPGFan probably shouldn't have its own Wiki article. Now, whether or not it's a reputable source for *other articles* is another question, with its own set of standards, correct? Since I don't know where else to put it, I'll go into that side of things and address some questions comments from other Wiki users here, if that's alright.

Regarding "editorial oversight" -- this is largely done internally, though there are some external restrictions that apply as well. To clear this up, the company/business behind RPGFan (Cerberus Media Group) does exist largely on paper. But it is a business. It is comprised of current and former RPGFan staff, mostly those who have worked in the development/PR roles for the site. I am not a part of CMG. But I do know that they handle all financial aspects of the site. CMG is "for-profit," which means it pays taxes. It collects ad revenue and uses that revenue to pay server fees and sometimes help reimburse for special occasions, such as if a staff member attends a convention (E3, GDC, etc). While the company CMG is "for profit," the entire staff of RPGFan remains unpaid. In place of payment are "perks" -- the free games that come at retail release, or sometimes in advance, from game publishers and/or 3rd-party PR groups, with the implicit understanding that those games will receive a review.

Most games that come to us have what the gaming press calls an "embargo date." This goes for full reviews, and also for "hands-on previews" if a game is sent in advance. While some publications tend to break those dates (in the same way a GameStop might break a "street date" for a game's release), RPGFan has rigidly held to those dates. In this sense, there is an external factor over *when* a review might go up. That's not necessarily content control, but it is a type of control.

As far as internal control goes, we do have designated copy-editors within the staff, and all news and reviews are checked for both grammatical errors and factual errors before posts. Also, if a review's text doesn't seem to match the numerical ratings, the copy-editors can challenge a reviewer on what's been written versus the scores given. In the last four years or so, we've actually developed a fairly robust internal editorial oversight program. But again, it's all done by volunteers; not sure if that's a problem.

Finally, our site does a pretty hefty amount of niche/import coverage. There are whole wikipedia articles that probably couldn't exist as much more than a stub without RPGFan's contributions. For example, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_the_Final_Fantasy_series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ys:_The_Oath_in_Felghana

Many of the taken-for-granted (unsourced) statements in those articles can be found sourced at RPGFan, and many of the other sites sourced have relied on RPGFan (credited or not) for information.

Some speculation as to why RPGFan is often called into question when an article is being nominated for Featured Article status. First, we have the word "Fan" in our name, suggesting an entirely fan-based site, one that might lack objectivity. Second, the site still exists in a Web 1.0 format, which generally calls into question the health and value of the site compared to many other sites (interestingly, our friends/rivals at RPGamer are in the exact same predicament).

However, I think the biggest reason RPGFan's legitimacy gets called into question when an article is getting considered for Featured Article status, is that (almost as a rule) the games that make FA status are popular games. That means that many very popular, already-known-to-be-legitimate sources have said tons of things about the game already. At that point, you might argue that RPGFan's voice in the matter is extraneous at best, and harmful at worst (if you cannot claim objectivity or legitimacy for the site). So, for safety's sake, the link to RPGFan for a Featured Article gets cut. Much as I'd like to change this, I think all we can do is continue to grow as a site, get some Web 2.0 features running, and perhaps bring some transparency to the workings of CMG. Advice from Wiki members on this point would be much appreciated.

All that said, I do think RPGFan ought to be considered a legitimate news source when there aren't many other outlets covering a game. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar_tonelico

We probably have the most complete coverage of this game among the six sites that were linked for the score. We have full information and reviews for the game itself, as well as its soundtracks (the game puts a strong emphasis on music, particularly female vocals with a fictional/created language). Games like these may not be as popular, and thus may not get full coverage at a site like GameSpot. And there are plenty of games that are far smaller in terms of development cost, sales, and popularity than Ar tonelico. For things like this, where this is no "larger" source to turn to for scores or quotes for reception, I would think that RPGFan is still a safe choice.

Sorry for the wall of text, hope this helps in consideration of the site, not just for the potential deletion of RPGFan as its own page on Wikipedia, but also for using RPGFan as a source for game-related Wikipedia articles.

Thank you, Patrick Gann Tonelico00 (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to read the whole response or give it a full reply, but wish to bring up Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Discography_of_Final_Fantasy_VII/archive1 which mentions the website. Will give a proper reply when I can. Rehevkor ✉ 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: As an ashamed knowledge editor: See WP:OVERCOME as the core of this discussion and why the majority of the email above means nothing for Wikipedia purposes. Follow that up with a a browse of WP:ENN. Notability is not based on merely passive references or a statement from a member of a "good" website. See WP:GARAGE for a somewhat humorous but often accurate way to deal with claims of extremely limited mention. Having one review related to one's site as specific review or resource ... also not notable. If I wanted to get really picky I'd question how an average review score can be 81% (credibility as a source) or the many reasons as to how Gamerankings would never qualify as a sole hook. Mentions in an FA candidate page might make it "of interest", but that's far below standards for notability. Most especially, notability cannot be based on "most complete coverage" of something in a review on one Wikipedia page. That's unreasonable by Wikipedia standards anyway, as we cannot base ourselves as a claim to notability or reliability. The VG project is niche already, and an RPG website is even more niche, and the fact it even states that Ar tonelico exists means it's unfathomably niche. This just makes the bar even higher on giving reliable references. cont. ♪ daTheisen(talk)

Take that point of view and the "big picture". A site that is trying distinguish notability by a large review and some archived reviews elsewhere or even had a large dedicated reader base-- is that notable? From an encyclopedic standard? From a global perspective? This is an odd nomination because deeper understand of the topic is unlikely to be found much, so since I have but few policy to cite I'll give a WP:DUCK test. Gut feeling? I can't possibly see what place in an encyclopedia this has. Would be worth an unlinked part of any lists of have of review/fan sites. If this were only a Wikipedia of video game content or RPG content? Might be a different story. However, all articles on Wikipedia must meet our most basic standards in WP:GNG, WP:RS and the like, even if the feel like they'd be a great fit inside their tiny niche. I can't say it's a bad site, nor am I saying anything sour of it... I've even visited several times I can recall in the past... but "Notable" per Wikipedia? Sorry. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Not every "news site" can be notable per Wikipedia standards. I won't fight it as a secondary source for parts of articles that now source it, but it fails WP:WEB, and WP:GNG. I would say for WP:VG's purposes it can be used as a secondary source to back up a primary source, but it does not meet Wikipedia criteria for an article. --Teancum (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Google Scholar returns a couple of brief mentions. SharkD  Talk  23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Each of those hits are merely passing mentions, and nothing to satisfy WP:WEB. --Teancum (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2009 (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.