463:
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.
572:
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 Knowledge (XXG) page. That's unreasonable by Knowledge (XXG) 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
496:
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.
508:
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.
433:
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
262:
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
571:
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)
507:
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).
491:
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
495:
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
470:
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
466:
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),
462:
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
458:
My semi-philosophical, semi-pragmatic thought here: if the requirement for something on
Knowledge (XXG) *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
48:. 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.
277:
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.
240:
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:
459:
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.
620:
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
Knowledge (XXG)? Sorry.
531:
361:
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..
511:
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 Knowledge (XXG), but also for using RPGFan as a source for game-related Knowledge (XXG) articles.
342:
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. -
471:
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.
595:
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
474:
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:
163:
488:
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.
245:. 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. --
427:
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.
315:
467:
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.
600:
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
120:
608:
be worth an unlinked part of any lists of have of review/fan sites. If this were only a Knowledge (XXG) of video game content or RPG content? Might be a different story. However,
492:
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).
643:- Not every "news site" can be notable per Knowledge (XXG) standards. I won't fight it as a secondary source for parts of articles that now source it, but it fails
157:
220:
442:), 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."
445:
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:
563:
as the core of this discussion and why the majority of the email above means nothing for Knowledge (XXG) purposes. Follow that up with a a browse of
499:
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:
198:, 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.
434:
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:
655:'s purposes it can be used as a secondary source to back up a primary source, but it does not meet Knowledge (XXG) criteria for an article. --
124:
17:
672:
57:
725:
36:
178:
145:
93:
88:
348:
303:
97:
395:
RPGFan (mentioning it in passing), but no actual coverage of the site. I see nothing that meets the criteria at
724:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
567:. Notability is not based on merely passive references or a statement from a member of a "good" website. See
80:
49:
439:
576:
exists means it's unfathomably niche. This just makes the bar even higher on giving reliable references.
314:
Used as a source, yes, but reliable? I don't know for sure, but I don't believe so. There's a discussion
139:
560:
452:
520:
344:
299:
451:
Our site has also been quoted in trailers and on the back of box art for games. In particular, see:
629:
586:
171:
135:
568:
530:
Sorry, I don't have time to read the whole response or give it a full reply, but wish to bring up
539:
367:
331:
283:
203:
84:
710:
688:
664:
633:
545:
524:
418:
373:
352:
337:
323:
307:
289:
272:
254:
232:
209:
62:
706:
660:
228:
185:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
601:
682:
268:
250:
76:
68:
698:
648:
644:
613:
564:
396:
242:
195:
516:
478:
413:
652:
617:
626:
583:
455:@ 0:57 ~ 1:00 ... we are the third site quoted, directly after Gamespot and Eurogamer.
535:
532:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured_article_candidates/Discography_of_Final_Fantasy_VII/archive1
363:
327:
279:
199:
151:
702:
656:
435:
388:
224:
114:
677:
604:
test. Gut feeling? I can't possibly see what place in an encyclopedia this has.
573:
322:
reliability. And as such the reliability has not been conformed or rejected per
264:
246:
483:
401:
440:
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/09/nintendo-power-ffiv-ds-coming-in-july/
697:
Each of those hits are merely passing mentions, and nothing to satisfy
446:
326:. Saying that, I'm not sure how that's relevant to notability issues.
453:
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/visceral-action-demons-souls/55696
612:
articles on Knowledge (XXG) must meet our most basic standards in
263:
than just a fansite, as CNET recognise it for their metarating. --
534:
which mentions the website. Will give a proper reply when I can.
718:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
318:
about it but it doesn't seem to come to any solid conclusions
502:
479:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Music_of_the_Final_Fantasy_series
110:
106:
102:
170:
184:
430:Regarding coverage of RPGFan from other sources:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
728:). No further edits should be made to this page.
484:http://en.wikipedia.org/Ys:_The_Oath_in_Felghana
436:http://playstation.joystiq.com/category/riviera/
221:list of video game related deletion discussions
8:
219:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
675:returns a couple of brief mentions.
447:http://www.ffomake.com/pgannint1.htm
503:http://en.wikipedia.org/Ar_tonelico
298:Isn't this site used a RS here? -
24:
387:- I have found a few places like
243:rpgfan statistics on Gamerankings
557:As an ashamed knowledge editor
1:
711:20:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
689:23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
665:13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
634:06:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
546:03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
525:03:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
419:21:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
374:14:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
357:Their legitimacy as a source
353:06:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
338:02:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
308:02:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
290:14:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
273:11:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
255:00:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
233:23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
210:23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
63:03:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
194:Does not appear notable per
745:
721:Please do not modify it.
515:Thank you, Patrick Gann
32:Please do not modify it.
324:Knowledge (XXG):VG/RS
651:. I would say for
44:The result was
590:
558:
235:
736:
723:
687:
685:
680:
632:
589:
577:
556:
542:
416:
410:
407:
404:
370:
334:
286:
215:
206:
189:
188:
174:
118:
100:
60:
56:
52:
34:
744:
743:
739:
738:
737:
735:
734:
733:
732:
726:deletion review
719:
683:
678:
676:
625:
582:
544:
540:
414:
408:
405:
402:
372:
368:
345:Norse Am Legend
336:
332:
300:Norse Am Legend
288:
284:
208:
204:
131:
91:
75:
72:
58:
54:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
742:
740:
731:
730:
715:
714:
713:
692:
691:
673:Google Scholar
667:
637:
636:
592:
591:
549:
548:
538:
422:
421:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
366:
330:
311:
310:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
282:
237:
236:
202:
192:
191:
128:
125:AfD statistics
71:
66:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
741:
729:
727:
722:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
695:
694:
693:
690:
686:
681:
674:
671:
668:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
639:
638:
635:
631:
628:
624:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
594:
593:
588:
585:
581:
575:
570:
566:
562:
554:
551:
550:
547:
543:
537:
533:
529:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
513:
509:
505:
504:
500:
497:
493:
489:
486:
485:
481:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
454:
449:
448:
443:
441:
437:
431:
428:
425:
420:
417:
412:
411:
398:
394:
390:
386:
383:
382:
375:
371:
365:
360:
356:
355:
354:
350:
346:
341:
340:
339:
335:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
291:
287:
281:
276:
275:
274:
270:
266:
261:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
244:
239:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
201:
197:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
126:
122:
116:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
73:
70:
67:
65:
64:
61:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
720:
717:
669:
640:
622:
609:
605:
598:encyclopedic
597:
579:
552:
514:
510:
506:
501:
498:
494:
490:
487:
482:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
450:
444:
432:
429:
426:
423:
400:
392:
384:
358:
319:
259:
216:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
45:
43:
31:
28:
574:Ar tonelico
561:WP:OVERCOME
158:free images
517:Tonelico00
627:daTheisen
584:daTheisen
569:WP:GARAGE
260:Weak Keep
536:Rehevkor
364:Rehevkor
328:Rehevkor
280:Rehevkor
200:Rehevkor
121:View log
703:Teancum
670:Comment
657:Teancum
602:WP:DUCK
578:cont.
225:MrKIA11
164:WP refs
152:scholar
94:protect
89:history
59:Windows
699:WP:WEB
679:SharkD
649:WP:GNG
647:, and
645:WP:WEB
641:Delete
630:(talk)
614:WP:GNG
587:(talk)
565:WP:ENN
559:: See
553:Delete
397:WP:WEB
385:Delete
265:Taelus
247:Taelus
196:WP:WEB
136:Google
98:delete
77:RPGFan
69:RPGFan
51:Fences
46:delete
684:Talk
653:WP:VG
618:WP:RS
606:Would
424:All,
399:. --
391:that
389:Wired
179:JSTOR
140:books
115:views
107:watch
103:links
55:&
16:<
707:talk
701:. --
661:talk
521:talk
393:cite
359:here
349:talk
316:here
304:talk
269:talk
251:talk
229:talk
217:Note
172:FENS
146:news
111:logs
85:talk
81:edit
610:all
438:or
320:for
186:TWL
123:•
119:– (
709:)
663:)
616:,
555::
523:)
406:am
403:At
351:)
306:)
271:)
253:)
231:)
223:.
166:)
113:|
109:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
705:(
659:(
623:♪
580:♪
541:✉
519:(
415:頭
409:a
369:✉
347:(
333:✉
302:(
285:✉
267:(
249:(
227:(
205:✉
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
117:)
79:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.