Talk:Él (video game)

Review source
WP:RS can mean many things, for a review, Animetric may not be the best, but it provides a competing review to the positive one over at Mania.com. According to WP:RSOPINION, the source is a reliable source for the reviewers opinion. I have attributed the reviewer's opinion to it properly as well. The reviewer is a reliable source for their own comments. The same applies to opinion pieces run in newspapers. Showing balance is best for NPOV which is why I included it. Secondly, ANN is like Rotten Tomatoes at this point, and Rotten Tomatoes is acceptable for other films as a general public response. While far from perfect, it does cover said material. Could you please explain why these are a problem? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding the point of WP:RSOPINION. While anything anyone writes is a reliable source on that person's opinion, it doesn't mean that people should care about that person's opinion, or that the opinion of that person should be used in an article.  While Aaron Murphy's review is a reliable source for his own opinion, it is useless to a reader, because he isn't a reliable source on anime.  We can reliably say what he thinks about the anime, but it doesn't tell anyone anything about whether the anime is actually good or not.  Including his review in the article is no better than if I just typed my own personal opinion into the article.  Conversely, Chris Beveridge has been interviewed by Anime News Network and been a guest on their podcasts, and some of his reviews have been included in RightStuf's Anime Today podcasts, meaning he is recognized as an expert by reliable sources.  That recognition as an expert means that his reviews do carry weight, and people should care what he says.  He is not only a reliable source on his own personal opinion, but also a reliable source on whether anime is good or not.  That is why Chris Beveridge's review is something that is good to include in the article, while Aaron Murphy's is not.  I've gone ahead any removed his review again.  About the ANN user ratings, those aren't at all comparable to the ratings that are normally used from Rotten Tomatoes, which are aggregated ratings from expert reviewers, not ordinary viewers.  ANN's user ratings are more comparable to user ratings from IMDB.  I think aggregated user ratings are a useful piece of information if there is enough people rating a series that it is a representative sample, as even though they aren't individually experts, the aggregated ratings can show the general opinion of the public on the subject.  However, in this case only 29 people have rated this anime on ANN, which is a tiny sample.  I think that sample is just too small to be informative (i.e. the opinion of 1,000 random people might be useful, but the opinion of 29 random people isn't).  Regardless though, if you want the article to be kept at AFD, user ratings aren't useful, as they aren't in depth coverage by reliable sources, which is what is needed to show notability. Calathan (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll take it to RSN or something later. Animetric is a pretty well known 'fan-site', but I guess the Mania review which is positive will be fine for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)