Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

Find video game sources: "GamersNexus" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Saw their name being thrown around on social media recently, but I'm not fully convinced, so wanted to get others' thoughts. Not to be confused with Gaming Nexus, which is currently listed as unreliable. Has a website, but appears to be primarily video focused. Already in use on multiple articles. Includes an ethics page. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cyberlink420 If this is an example of their coverage, I am concerned. It is not signed by any person (that I noticed), uses royal "we", and they have no editorial about us or such I could find. This kind of content could be AI generated, or otherwise made up, and is no better than an anonymous blog, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Top right it has Writing, Lead editing Steve Burke, and Research and Writing Ben Benson. Steve Burke is also the presenter in all their youtube videos (there is at least a review/hardware channel, and a consumer advocacy/protection type channel). Wilbers (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable per the example coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Cukie Gherkin this appears to be a mistake on your part. Their byline is on the right hand side of the page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Generally Reliable - GamersNexus is primarily video based but has been reviving its written content in recent years. I think it's fair to say they're extremely well-regarded within the industry as an outlet, especially for hardware items, and they're pretty much my go to source for hardware reviews. They're extremely transparent in their editorial, and also keep a running log of errors and corrections on their website which is good to see. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

They are a specialized outlet for gamer hardware, which I would say is "Situational". IgelRM (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Gameliner" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Hi, we would like to open a discussion in regards of adding Gameliner.nl to the list of reliable gaming resources. Gameliner has been founded in 2005 and focuses on gaming news, reviews, articles and previews. The editorial staff consists of 12 actual active writers/ editors. The platform is a used as a source by both OpenCritic as MetaCritic for a longer period of time and has posted approximately 3.000 gaming reviews since its founding (all of which are still available for reading to date).

Gameliner is one of the last independent Dutch gaming media outlets and provides it's articles in Dutch, which of course would make it a foreign language platform. All additional information in regards to the platform have been provided in [games/sources]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudyWijnberg (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Further context here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@RudyWijnberg: If you're here, then I might as well ask you a few questions. What's your editorial policy and what's your stance on AI? EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@EnvironmentalDoor Our Editiorial staff is 100% human, as well as our front- and backenders. Our bios are written below every article and every editor can be verified via multiple sources such as LinkedIn. We are a 100% independent, human and long lasting crew of writers.

I'n regards to the comment by @Piotrus regarding the mehness and non recognition of the platform. We are actually recognized and validated by Metacritic, which is I believe a very reliable source on here is it not? As a Dutch platform it is quite hard to outshine megacorps like the IGN's, Gamespot and other million dollar companies. ~2026-67876-7 (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to login appearantly RudyWijnberg (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair, but 1) I don't see the bios - see links below? You have a dedicated bio section in the author profile pages, but the bios are elsewhere? 2) Metacritic argument is fair and I'll wait for others to comment on whether that's enough (and if not, why - I am curious). As for other forms of recognition, as a Pole I write about Polish sources and I know sources are hit and miss, but the more important platforms like yours tend to be able to point to some mentions of them by occasional other reliable media and if lucky enough, scholars. Was your platform ever profiled or mentioned by a Dutch newspaper, magazine or such? (I did search, with no luck, but I don't speak Dutch, and I am also well aware of that older mentions tend to be not digitized).

On a separate note, I see a critical comment at nl:Wikipedia:Te_beoordelen_pagina's/Toegevoegd_20160320 by @Fred Lambert (sadly, they seem inactive since last November, so I am unsure they can stop by to elaborate). I don't think nl wiki ever had or has an article about Gameliner (which is not a strike against, notability=/=reliability, just observing). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Being in Metacritic (or OpenCritic) is not a hallmark of reliability. Huge swathes of sources in both are unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, the Bio on the profiles are just user pages, all of our users and commenters have those. We don't offer testimonials or former work about the editors. The "Colofon" page gives an overview of all people associated, their role and their year of starting/ ending at Gameliner.

In regards to the peer assessment, as shown in the Colofon we have both an editor in chief and a managing editor, who are in charge of checking the articles for any inconsistencies, dubious facts or speculation. Our Editorial guidelines are not published on the site itself, they are shared internally though. RudyWijnberg (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@RudyWijnberg Would you consider making them public? I don't see how it would be problematic, and would help for your case here (and perhaps elsewhere). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be possible. Let me make it a bit user friendly, as it is now mainly used by the staff. Should be up before the weekend. In the meantime, tried to find some noticable mentions. The NOS (dutch broadcasting association) requests our expertise on occasion Example can be found here (with editor Claudia Tjia) RudyWijnberg (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@RudyWijnberg How has this whole editorial guidelines thing been going so far? Would it be OK to provide an update? EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey @EnvironmentalDoor sure! Nearly there, currently on a small holiday break and had some other domain related updates which had to be done first. On it, though, i'll drop a note once live! RudyWijnberg (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @EnvironmentalDoor, pleased to notify you that we've just published the editorial guidelines (redactionele richtlijnen). These can be found in the header under "more" and/or by just visiting this page RudyWijnberg (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts: I cannot locate editorial policy outside information about recruitment, which itself is fine but does not suggest any form of peer review/supervision (on the plus side, there is no suggestion they use AIs - but there is also nothing saying they don't), their about us is more of a history and 'cool stuff we do'; there is no information there that the site won any awards or received any form of recognition from anyone. Team members are not anonymous , two sample bios I checked are empty , , which makes it hard to confirm credentials of their team members. So, errr, pretty meh-ish for me. They are better than a social media / AI platform, the structure is reasonably average, but there is also no evidence they recognized (no awards, press coverage reported). I can't say they are unreliable, but I can't say they are a strong source either. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems reliable now given updates/comments/discussion above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Public editorial guidelines, no AI usage, obviously not a small team, real people... I'm entirely comfortable with marking this as reliable. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Cinema Blend" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I'm proposing this be reexamined, as I don't think the prior discussions were thorough enough to actually put it under unreliable. Looking at their about page, they indicate that they follow The Editors' Code of Practice for independent sources. I also question listing as unreliable because none of the articles identified what is wrong with their content. I mean, the content does not appear to be revolutionizing media discussion, but I have not found issue with anything I've seen. Not only that, but they're clearly not some rinky dink website; in the past week, they published 20 interviews, including of CM Punk, Paul Giamatti, and Bill Skarsgard. Looking at Google Scholars, they're also cited incredibly often; clearly, they are considered reliable enough to be cited as frequently as they are in published works.

While Cinema Blend primarily focuses on television and movies, almost exclusively, being that they cover shows and movies about video game adaptations, it makes sense to list them here in some capacity. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable: The Code of Practice seems to mainly focus on ethics company policies, which is fine. According to their about page, they cover "what fans are into" with their "own insights, opinions and perspective". They also mark advertorials and sponsored content as such. This recent article is marked as having affiliate links, with the actual article itself reading in a more informal manner. Based on these brief checks, I wouldn't say they are outright unreliable, which CB is currently marked as. Instead, I think WP:MREL would be fair, as better, reliable sources such as Radio Times and Gizmodo are available. 11WB (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Situational It's not an unusable source, judging from what I see, but it's very weak. I would not use it when stronger sources are available, but I don't see why it can't be used. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I recall the very old articles were particular blog-like. Perhaps improved, but these are often cited for "quick Google" convenience and not for good reason. IgelRM (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "...American City Business Journals..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This source was previously discussed at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Quite a few info on varies video game companies from the different business Journals (Washington Business Journal, Baltimore Business Journal, etc)

Examples. , ,

I propose we add this to other reliable sources. Timur9008 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

What was the outcome of the RSN talks? Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

No consensus Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_485#BizJournals. Timur9008 (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I should note I've been checking these for info from 1996 to 2000. Not sure if the current stuff is reliable. Timur9008 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It's stately a business trade source, which should be viewed in that context. E.g. not giving notability, but fine corporate reliability. IgelRM (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the examples cited and I don't see any problems, seems pretty standard if uninspired type of coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "GamerGen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Stylized as GAMERGEN. Their copyright information indicates they are a long running site (2005-2026). Can't find an about page or editorial policy. Unsure how to feel about this one. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable: No editorial policies or about page. This recent "article" is a couple of paragraphs giving the price and nothing else. If this is what qualifies as "news" to them, this should probably be avoided. Especially when we have actual reliable sources that do a much better job of reporting on the same thing. 11WB (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  The comparison here is between a French website and English ones, which assumingly have different focus areas? But I don't know of anything that makes it reliable either. IgelRM (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I decided to look into this one, and found that the discussions deeming it unreliable have largely been based on only very few people. In my opinion, and I don't blame anyone for this, but I believe Twinfinite was erroneously labeled unreliable. There were claims that staff did not seem to have experience working on reliable sources. However, using muckrack, I can verify that to not be true. For instance:

1. Managing editor Chris Jecks: Siliconera, PCGamesN
2. Ana Mitic: Siliconera, Prima Games, The Escapist, Destructoid
3. Damiano Gerli: IGN Italia, VICE, Kotaku, PC Gamer
4. Gordan Perisic: The Escapist, Destructoid
5. Jovan Krstić: Destructoid, The Escapist, Dot Esports
6. Keenan McCall: Game Informer, Electronic Gaming Monthly
7. Maja Kovačević: Destructoid, The Escapist
8. Ben Williams: The New York Times, Nature, The Washington Post, Entrepreneur

With the website's strong fact-checking policy, corrections policy, review policy, and ethics policy, I believe that this is a perfectly acceptable entry as a reliable source. The only downside of this source is that any sourcing worth citing is basically defunct, as the site only does guide content anymore, but I believe there is nothing damaging older sources' usability on Wikipedia. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Conditional RS: Their news page has nothing from after October 2025, which is a bit odd. On that basis, they clearly aren't reliable for up-to-date news. @Cukie's comment on being defunct is accurate.

Their Expedition 33 review written by Ben Williams isn't really anything special in all honesty. I wouldn't say it is either reliable or unreliable in that sense. A GTA VI console update by Damiano Gerli is straight to the point, no extra nonsense that readers won't care about or don't need to know about, beyond the update itself. Their policies are also short and straight, with no immediate red flaggs. Twinfinite is also owned by Gamurs, who own Destructoid among other marginally reliable outlets.

Their 2017 staff appear to be completely different to their current staff. I trust @Cukie's list is probably correct, though one check for Ben Williams writing for NYT turned up with nothing. I will say Twinfinite is probably reliable, on the condition other editors don't find things that would make them untrustworthy. 11WB (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Reliable I concur with Cukie that the evidence provided is adequate for a re-approval for the website's reliability. Good policies, strong team with a background (I did find out that Ben Williams hadn't wrote for the New York Times despite what MuckRack says, but I am willing to believe that is a problem with MR rather than the actual author) and well written articles. Being apart of Gamurs shouldn't really be a problem for the site as we use many reliable sources of theirs, that said it maybe the reason why they have stopped doing anything that isn't a guide. However, I would suggest maybe listing the website with suggested cutoff points similar to Kotaku, whereby I would probably cut off past the last discussion and then maybe also suggest avoid using the more recent guide churnalism. Something like 2018 or 2019 (around the time they hired their Managing Editor) to 2024 or 2025 which is around when their news articles stopped. CaptainGalaxy 21:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Reliable - I was also puzzled on why it was labeled unreliable. Authors like Giuseppe Nelva often covered niche topics and offered insightful commentary: example Jotamide (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps the site improved, but neither spotlighting or commentary equals journalistic standards. I recall serious concerns before. IgelRM (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I am quite new to the in and outs of Wikipedia but what makes SteamDB (or any of these sites) less reliable than somebody writing an article which provides statistics? I've done a little research into SteamDB and I can see that it uses Steam's public APIs to provide live and historic player counts. The accuracy is reliable because this can be confirmed with Steam itself when visiting a game's community hub as it shows the players in-game, there's maybe a 5-10 player discrepancy between SteamDB and Steam itself in games with 20,000+ players. In terms of providing statistics without a bias it seems very reliable?

Are we saying Steam is an unreliable source for conveying player counts on Steam? Why?

I guess the question I am trying to ask is: why is an article from somebody who may or may not have a bias more reliable than statistics which are accurate and data driven? JackFrostyG (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

See the most recent discussion on it here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Archived discussion doesn't fully answer my question. While it may not be reliable in other areas it is certainly reliable in use of obtaining a player-count for Steam as proven by Steam itself when visiting the Community Hub and checking the '___ Player's in Game'.

I also still don't understand why we would not use an unbiased Statistic from Steam's own public API for a game published on Steam when editing around player count at a minimum, but we would include an article including a figure with no source of it's own, can be biased and is less accurate. JackFrostyG (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

We don't use SteamDB for player statistics because we don't care about player statistics unless its creating noticeable impact and commentary by reliable sources. SteamDB isn't that, it's just a number, carrying no context. As for the rest, I don't think its worth getting into the "but why are unproven estimates bad when companies might just be lying anyway". SteamDB is not a reliable source. There is no verification of its figure, simply a blackbox estimate using various pieces of public data. There is no editorial process happening here. Yeah, it's probably close, but that's not good enough for Wikipedia policy. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It's exact reasoning is to give context. It is the base of any article and Wiki page that discusses player count on Steam and the majority of pages discuss reception, engagement or count. If this is unreliable despite being verifiable via Steam then every Wiki Page discussing these topics has no reliability unless we can see where these figures are coming from.

"but why are unproven estimates bad when companies might just be lying anyway" - Steam can be used to verify SteamDB's player count figures. Where is this quote from? Why are we now mentioning companies?

Next, by this logic, articles giving player counts are also unproven estimates and therefore unreliable as they aren't verifiable. They can add all the context they want to the subject, but if there's no verifiability of player count then we can't take the source as reliable when discussing this topic. JackFrostyG (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You're not arguing from a position of Wikipedia policy. The words verifiable and reliable aren't just common words for Wikipedia. Verifiability is essentially "Can you check a reliable source and it cites that data?" Yes. We can. When PCGamer or Eurogamer or another WP:RS as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines writes and publishes an article that states a game has sold however many copies, that satisfies WP:V. It's not "Can I, the reader, directly ask and verify this number with Valve?". It's "Do we have a reliable source to use that verifies this claim?"

SteamDB does not pass WP:RS, lacking any editorial control, using guesstimates gleaned from various public statistics (Steam does *not* publish sales figures. SteamDB does *not* have them. They estimate from other data). SteamDB does not talk to industry partners, does not report actual sales releases, does not do research or factchecking. It simply ingests various player statistics to calculate out a guess. So its figures are not usable on Wikpiedia. -- ferret (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I suppose I don't agree with the Wikipedia policy in relation to sourcing/using statistics then and that is an issue for a different page, if you are being genuine.

Other than that, we're going to be going around in circles so let's not waste our time and thank you for the discussion. JackFrostyG (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "...The Escapist..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

The Escapist is currently listed as Situational with content between October 2017 and July 2018 to be handled with care.

I believe newer content may no longer be reliable due to this article:

Clickout Media, owner of websites such as Esports Insider and The Escapist, has told its staff that they are being laid off. The layoffs come just a week after they began laying off freelancers and pausing all future freelance hires.

Insider Gaming understands that the company is making a heavy pivot to AI content, resulting in almost all of its editorial staff being let go.

It was said that Clickout Media will be maintaining a skeleton crew of “AI Editors.”

“Sad to say that my role at The Escapist is up for redundancy, and that means a lot of things that I’m still not quite getting my head around,” The Escapist writer Lloyd Coombes wrote, though he did not mention the AI pivot in his posting.

It’s also believed that employees being let go are being forced to sign an NDA from speaking publicly about the layoffs, at risk of not receiving their severance payouts.

https://insider-gaming.com/clickout-media-owner-of-the-escapist-pivots-to-ai-holds-mass-layoffs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinNyanko (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

unreliable per... uh... "per nom" is also a thing here, right? let's all laugh at an industry that never learns anything, tee hee hee consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable after December 2025 & situational before (they did have some decent coverage of tabletop products for a bit but I don't recall using Escapist for video game coverage). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

"Insider Gaming" is not a reliable source, so I don't think there should be changes solely based on that. IgelRM (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

GamesIndustry.biz (link) & Aftermath (link) reported on a major round of layoffs in April 2025 which impacted Escapist; A.V. Club (link) & Kotaku (link) picked up Insider Gaming's coverage of the more recent layoffs and AI pivot. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Another Clickout Media website, VideoGamer, was caught earlier using a fake writer to create reviews. This led to two reviews being removed from Metacritic and allegedly future VideoGamer reviews not being added to the site. A former VideoGamer editor also mentioned the use of that AI writer. While this isn't The Escapist, they're both owned by the same company. This supports the statement that Clickout Media is using AI to generate content. Not to mention, they also aren't disclosing it.

I mentioned in a previous thread about The Escapist's reliability that their Managing Editor has stated using genAI to make images for another Clickout Media property as well. Snakester95 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "...site name..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · URL... LinkTo

For those who aren't aware, Kotaku changed ownership in recent months and under new management look to be expanding their human journalistic operations in complete contrast to the previous owners wanting to AI everything that saw the downgrade.

Therefore wish to reopen discussion as to whether to return the site to Generally Reliable following the change in ownership given the positive directions they appear to be taking. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I think in retrospect the decision to classify Kotaku as fully unreliable post-mid 2023 was jumping the gun. The only AI thing that came out of it IIRC was the Kotaku Australia domain being sold to an AI content farm. But I don't think anything AI really came to the main site?

Kotaku did undeniably have a period there where their content was kind-of content farmy, but we already noted that even when they were reliable. The July 2023 cut off was 100% based on the AI thing, which did not go far. I think we should revert the unreliable classification and just go back to the "be cautious of certain types of articles" status quo that existed prior. λ NegativeMP1 00:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1 G/O Media did indeed have AI articles, to the point G/O Media staff themselves criticised it, so the reclassification in that regard was justified (and even then as said the situational nature was just G/O Media in general).

However it does appear the new owner is going in a positive direction in terms of funding their operations well, so I think the concerns for why it was reduced have been dealt with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

If that's the case, then maybe have something where mid-2023 to late-2025 articles should be treated with extra caution to make sure they're not AI generated, but not strictly unreliable. It wasn't their entire output, was it? λ NegativeMP1 00:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The GUNREL for the latter G/O Media period was for a variety of things by the end (content farming, editorial interference by management etc), with the undisclosed AI usage being the last straw.

Like I say, I think the cleanest move would be to leave the G/O Media period as it currently stands (a slow move to generally unreliable) and then for the new ownership move it back towards reliable because it looks to have sizeably increased in quality and be getting editorial resource. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that G/O Media should be possibly reliable, as there were still staff with experience at other reliable sources doing journalism there. I think we should just advise caution, and particularly to check the author of an article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

From what I recall they published a few AI-generated articles under G/O. The main issue was that, like CNET, they weren't marking the content as AI (they simply published them without a credited author) which wasn't acceptable in our eyes. That being said, they definitely seem to have turned things around since July 2025. I'm fine with treating articles published after the Keleops acquisition as reliable, though it should still remain under the situational section due to the iffy reliability of pre-2010 articles and the 2023-2025 period where they were a clear content farm. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 10:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure it was Kotaku? I remember that a G/I outlet did, but I don't remember it being Kotaku. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

. Articles "written" by "Kotaku Bot" weren't properly marked, such as this simply not listing an author at the time of publication. Based on my look through archive.org, they still weren't distinguishing AI articles as late as May 2025, which looks to be when they discontinued it. I will note that they still are publishing a ton of promotional crap that looks AI-generated, though it's at least marked. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 17:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

If the time period is marked situational, it should specify that articles without author credit shouldn't be used since it is an AI indicator. Per WP:SPONSORED, as long as promotional "articles" are marked as such and you can distinguish between them & regular articles, then we don't really have to consider them when doing the evaluation. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable - I was also thinking about starting this discussion. Kotaku is now owned by the same parent company (Keleops) that bought Gizmodo; along with expanding the staff size, the new owners did away with some of the G/O Media weirdness (such as restoring the ability to comment on articles). I haven't seen any AI indicators on either Gizmodo or Kotaku since they were purchased. Keleops also "owns several French-language technology titles, including legacy brands 01net and Presse-citron"; I'm not seeing anything in the WP:RSP noticeboard archives about either of those sites but might be worth looking at to get a better sense of how Keleops manages the outlets it owns. I also agree with NegativeMP1 that Kotaku from mid-2023 to mid-2025 could be considered situational instead of unreliable. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable but with a note that mid-2023-mid-2025 should be considered highly situational per above. As of now it looks like things are good for now, but this is definitely something that can be re-evaluated later if need be. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable; it always bothered me that Kotaku had fully been considered situational when for the majority of its over-20-years span, its articles were of good quality, only tarnished by a brief period in which they could be construed as situational. I support moving the source up to generally reliable. –GM 02:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable per above. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

reliable, but with a little prejudice to reconsidering previous consensuses (consensi?), as "reliable but watch out for geekier stuff" and "reliable when it's not ai slop" are pretty plainly the case for its states before. maybe separate it into four sections though, including that ai skinwalker that stole kotaku australia's domain consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I do agree that this re-evaluation is probably more consistent with how we've handled these situations that have been happening in recent years. (Polygon, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment - Given this seems unanimous at least in terms of it now being considered GENREL again, are there any issues with therefore closing this at least for that aspect (GENREL since ownership change) and leaving the status for previous periods unchanged given the lack of clear consensus from discussion on those aspects? Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no issues with closing this discussion and listing it as reliable. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "noclip360" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This is completely unreliable, but more here for a history of discussion just in case it persists and we get people trying to cite it. The latest venture of Mark Kern's, the site is completely AI generated, down to the comments section... Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable. Good to have discussion record I suppose, but feels almost unneeded in this case. ~2026-11263-84 (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "AndroidMag" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Magazine with an editorial team. I've found reviews by them to be useful when sourcing. However, they are scarcely cited on Wikipedia. Has anyone ever used them as a source before? NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Does anybody want to discuss this? NewAccount7295 (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This one's kinda interesting. Here's their about page and staff members, review scores details, and the companies they have worked with. Kazama16 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Some good content, but seems unreliable by Wikipedia standards. Can't see reliable sources citing them, no established writers, no editorial policy, accepts guest posts. TinNyanko (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we need to make a new subsection for sites purchased by ClickOut Media, similar to Valnet. Per this article, they have been pivoting hard to AI generated content and laid off most if not all staff. Affected sites include The Escapist, Adventure Gamers, Esports Insider, and VideoGamer [EDIT: a report from Aftermath has gone into further detail, including identifying more sites they've bought such as Esports News UK], and the results have been almost immediate: as of today, AI-generated reviews of Resident Evil Requiem and Pokémon Fire Red/Leaf Green were uploaded to VideoGamer that resulted in the site being blacklisted from Metacritic, and multiple contributor bylines have been overwritten with AI profiles. IMO, we need to clearly cordon off any sites under their ownership and establish hard cut-offs for when they were considered reliable/situational (though the replacement of the bylines will admittedly make this more difficult and will perhaps require additional vetting if older content is being cited). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Support cordoning off ClickOut Media owned outlets in a similar fashion to Valnet. I think December 2025 as an end date for reliable/situational makes sense if the AI generated content just started in 2026 (ie. seems to have occurred following the 2026 layoffs). The rewriting of older article bylines is such a pain; probably means treating those sources as dead & using archive links. This is where I'd normally suggest making a WP:URLREQ but the editors who run that seem swamped by WP:NOMOREARCHIVETODAY cleanup so it might be a bit before an automated "mark everything as dead" solution is available. In the meantime, I'd suggest adding guidance in the new ClickOut Media section about marking those sources as dead & adding archive links. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I might even go earlier. The second Kotaku article states that social accounts for the fake writers started popping up in October 2025, so there might be some AIgen articles in there even before the layoffs. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Bummer. Maybe situational from various sale dates to somewhere in Oct-Dec 2025 and unreliable afterwards? Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we should consider deprecating - We already have a couple of individual discussions above on individual publications but I was coming here anyway to suggest we outright deprecate them given as shown with VideoGamer (genuinely depressing how far that's fallen from the 2010s when it was so truly unique, in particular its now largely wiped video content) the new owners are actively engaged in deliberate attempts to mislead readers into thinking it's not AI by generating fake social media profiles for their "writers".

I think this adds a new level of risk that goes beyond simply being unreliable so would deserve consideration of active warning and blocking that deprecating carries. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Deprecate for all content from October 2025. Even if the AI content only started this week, I feel that it is too risky to include anything from October 2025-February 2026, especially if they are trying to trick others into believing it is human work. I would also suggest adding it to the spam filter. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd be against adding it the spam filter because it would prevent the use of archived older work which is usable. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Support/deprecate per nom. This is quite dire. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Support/deprecate. The sources of these companies are not concerned with the quality of the content, but rather with monetization. Furthermore, it is not an honest company; it tried to deceive several people with content written by AI. I also agree with its inclusion on the spam list. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support deprecating post-December 2025: I'm currently updating WP:VG/S and the cite plugins, but I fully support this. They were low quality sources before, and now they are unusable sadly. 11WB (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Tech Times (https://www.techtimes.com/) is listed as a reliable source under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#General computing/technology, and I'd suggest re-evaluating that. See RSN in 2022 (three editors considered it unreliable), RSN 2024 (three more editors agreed), and this RSN thread I just posted. It posts a lot of lightly-rewritten content from other sources and solicits for paid placement in articles, and it's not clear whether they appropriately disclose paid placement. Looks like it's currently cited in about 185 relevant articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Thumb Culture" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I'm in the process of creating a draft for a video game article and there's a few potential sources that haven't yet been reviewed as far as I can tell that I'd like to see consensus on. The first of these I'd like to see clarified is Thumb Culture, a gaming review and news site. (I'll ask about the other sources I'd like clarification with once a consensus is made here, as to not overflow the page with questions.)

There does seem to be an editorial process with the reviews, since the review policy on the site states each article is read by the Editor-in-Chief for approval before being published.

The reviews also don't seem to be user generated. The site's about page claims the team uses a small team of writers and content creators in order to write reviews. Individual author biographies, which can be found at the bottom of the author's reviews, don't always list credentials unfortunately, but a couple of them do.

I'm not really the best at gauging reliability of currently unreviewed sources on my own, so it'd be great if someone could give its reliability (or potential lack of such) a more thorough investigation than my inexperienced self can. I would personally say situational just as a gut feeling, but again, not that experienced at gauging reliability and could be wrong on either side. ThyCheshireCat (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Leaning unreliable. Wordpress site isn't a good start, but the fact it's a small team of people who seem to lack strong journalistic credentials (At least the ones I checked at a glance) and many don't include full credits. While they aren't USERGEN I wouldn't consider this a particularly strong source. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Would be helpful to determine if this is reliable or not. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 25#Gamepur?

Stuff other than content:

• It's under Gamurs these days, which I guess I would describe as "could be worse", some of their other gaming publications are under reliable or situational.
• There's ...some WP:UBO. Not a ton.
• Searching for their staff shows some cross-pollination with RS. Games journalists at least considered it a real outlet to write for. (, , , , )

Content:

• They seemed to have stopped publishing reviews, features, or news after mid-2024 (and it looks like it was already greatly thinned out by 2024), switching to guideslop instead.
• They have (had?) an editorial policy.
• Their content, when they were making it, seemed of reasonable quality.

I'd give them a situational ("within, if on the outer reaches of, the orbit of online games journalism" to put it colorfully) until mid-2024, and a "not usable for anything because they no longer produce journalistic content" after that. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Can this be listed as "situational" rather than inconclusive? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Did some analysis on these for a GAN review, all appear generally unreliable, and figured I might as well put these here to get them marked on VG/S. (Selfish goal: I want them red on my cite highlighter in the future.) ~ A412 ^talk! 06:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a gaming site I used to establish notability for Pokémon Insurgence, specifically this article. This one is bylined as a staff editorial. Their editorial standards prioritise "authenticity and accuracy through meticulous research" and refer to an experienced team of gaming journalists. They maintain editorial independence, so no shill-ing, which is always good to see. They disclose COIs and are transparent about who they partner with. They also have a reasonable rating methodology, using the standard 1-10 scale.

The broccoli goes cold however when I attempt to look up their bylined writers. Bearing in mind, I went into this looking to establish this site as reliable, I can't find their authors anywhere else on the web...

WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable outlets. Fortunately, Mic and Kotaku have this covered for Insurgence. This site is a question mark for me at this time.

Find video game sources: "GamesRecon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo 11WB (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I would consider it unreliable due to the lack of credentials. Their article titles make me suspect that they're little better than a content farm going after keywords. On top of that, their article formatting and random bolding make me suspect that their content was written by AI/LLMs. Woodroar (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Leaning unreliable per Woodroar. Not seeing strong credentials and what content exists doesn't seem particularly high quality. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "...Slant Magazine..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Slant Magazine covers various topics and has a dedicated video game section. They also have the usual About page and a staff list. Can they be considered reliable? Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

This looks reliable. Plenty of use by others (Slant Magazine has examples). I checked the first few bylines in their games section; all also wrote for other publications. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Slant Magazine is a reliable source. It's fairly prominent in its niche, and their reviews often point out flaws that other reviewers gloss over. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Reliable per others. I've used it plenty of times before; they're a strong source. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "IGC" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This website primarily does game and tech reviews. I believe this may be a situational source. I cannot find an editorial policy, but i did find a scoring policy which details how they conduct their reviews. They also accept freelance reviews, of which some are completely anonymous to my knowledge (such as this), which are almost certainly unreliable, although others (like ) are not. This might just be case by case basis issue, with some authors being more reliable than others. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I would consider this unreliable. As far as I can tell, the site owner has no credentials beyond running this site. And then there's this account, "Alison", which "is being used to post news by myself, and a few members of our team". Alison who? Again, no credentials. I checked their most recent blog and there's a sketchy link to a World of Warcraft boosting service. Accepting reviews from anyone and not being transparent about who wrote content, plus undisclosed advertising, that's all a quick fail in my book. Woodroar (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable, no real vetting of authors or editorial process. Here's a review , and a quote from it: "The review was written by me and edited by my partner." Here's another , with a "Bonus Opinion from IGC's Owner". Here's their about page: , where they explicitly mention seeking inexperienced volunteer writers. I see this as a blog written by amateur writers and overseen by an uncredentialed site owner. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "EarlyGame" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I'm considering using this lore analysis as a potential draft on Sparkle from Honkai: Star Rail. Since we last discussed EarlyGame, they appear to have posted an editorial policy, but neglect to mention whether any of their current contributors has any professional experience, which is why I'm a little hesitant to use it as a source without first discussing it here. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 19:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Good news is I think the staff on this authors list are real, not AI. Their content lead, Ignacio Weil, has also written for MSN. The articles EarlyGame publish are in a digestible format, I'm not really sure what they could add to an article that a more mainstream source couldn't in all honestly. I'm less concerned with their reliability and am instead questioning their usability. 11WB (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

MSN is an aggregator, that link is just aggregating an EarlyGame article. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

~ Facepalm ~ 11WB (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @A412, I've struck that part of my comment. Yahoo News is an aggregator, but also publishes their own reports. I assumed, after seeing MSN listed on their Muckrack, that MSN was the same... 11WB (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

A quick check shows they've only been cited 26 times in Wikipedia article space, so I think I'm probably correct with my usability concern. 11WB (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "GNN Gamer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Bahamut/GNN [zh], although it does have a blog feature, has a page indicating that there is a process for editorial review prior to publication as an article. It was put up for discussion on the Chinese Wikipedia in 2019, and according to one editor who posted there who claims to have experience writing for them, they say Bahamut takes a few days to publish an accepted article submission, which indicates to me they take their editorial review process seriously. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 16:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought this is the third time it is brought up. It has already been included in the reliable source list iirc. MilkyDefer 17:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see it, or at least not the terms "Bahamut" or "GNN". It is included on the Chinese version of the list though: zh:PJ:VG/S, but not in English. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

When I first proposed inclusion I went out of my way to expand GNN into Gamer News Network and since then, nobody realize that it has already been discussed. MilkyDefer 17:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, therein lies the issue... I'll put in the abbreviation in parentheses. Thanks for clearing that up! Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Was a matter of time before I got around to bringing this here. Most video game editors will be familiar with this source, so I don't feel the need to do a giant breakdown. For the benefit of those that aren't however, I will provide the following links:

• Editorial standards
• About us
• Editorial staff

From what I've seen of their output, they remind me a lot of The Sun. They already have pre-established consensus as situational, viewable at WP:DEXERTO. I've personally used them in the past, such as with this article, which just quotes Smogon's forums, Twitter and Reddit. It is basically about the Pokémon featured in the Smogon logo looking similar to somebody performing the Nazi salute. Unsurprisingly, it is the only website that has published a story on this.

There may be minimal uses for citing this site, but on the whole, I don't think they are reliable at all. 11WB (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Isn't it already covered under WP:DEXERTO?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Generally, yes. This is for articles under the Video games project specifically. 11WB (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean we could put it under even more don't use, but there's been like one fringe case I've used it due to the author having significant experience in a field and the article being well-written. At most urging against Churnalism and encouraging to check the author's background?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

There are many comments in the 2023 RfC that go over exactly why they shouldn't be used at all. This stood out to me in particular. If most of their content is indeed from contributors, much like WP:FORBESCON, we really shouldn't be using them at all. The closing statement doesn't really make much sense to me. How much should we be saying not to use a source before it is actually deemed unreliable outright? It seems to be like that threshold has already been passed quite substantially. 11WB (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable per 11WB. It's a tabloid and its use is basically veto'd in any halfway decent article as it stands. On the off chance a reliable, experienced writer writes for them, sure, cite it, but in any other case I do not trust them to have good quality control and should likely be marked generally unreliable rather than the situational status it's ranked at now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I voted for unreliability and possible flat out deprecation at that 2023 RfC. If it happened today, I maybe wouldn't go as far as a complete deprecation (as KFM points out, they do have occasional pieces from reliable authors). General unreliability, however, would be a lock.

In that very RfC, and it's RSP listing, it was established that the site has multiple hallmarks of something that we should not consider unreliable. There is evidence of false reporting and misinformation. You will especially find that their Twitter / X profile engages in some horrible reporting that is, too, often times false. I consider that to be an extension of the brand image, even if not real articles they're publishing, because we allow people to cite social media posts from the profiles of sources we consider reliable (or at least we don't question it often).

Multiple tabloid publications we consider unreliable from Wikipedia as a whole. Daily Mail, WP:THESUN... yet, for some reason, we consider Dexerto to be "marginally acceptable" despite being of roughly the same caliber. Some people argued for their eSports coverage to be reliable, since it won awards; as far as I'm aware, the eSports branch of Dexerto is Charlie Intel, a separate publication that could arguably be situational itself (I would vote for it to be unreliable as well though, they publish the same garbage). And, you know what else won awards for journalism? Both sources I just mentioned, and for the video games side of things, Sportskeeda. Should they be reliable because they won awards?

So let's lay out the points: It is already known they are a tabloid that doesn't engage in serious journalism and often publishes false information. What do we want from a reliable source? Serious journalism and at least some fact checking; there's a difference in stuff falling between the cracks sometimes and not even bothering to try. They are multiple steps down even from other sources we consider low-quality. Unreliable. λ NegativeMP1 03:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Just a generate note here. As the 2023 consensus was established in a formal RfC, I am going to assume any consensus that forms in this discussion will only extend as far as the Video games WikiProject. The RS/PS listing may just update to include a note that VG/S deems Dexerto unreliable, but it'll probably remain situational for the rest of Wikipedia. As for how the plugins mark it. Even though I assist in keeping them updated, I am also unsure on that one. I'm going to courtesy ping @ActivelyDisinterested, as they frequent RS/N and probably know the answer to this better than myself. 11WB (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Consensus can change, the RFC was a few years ago now and the online media market is changing at breakneck speed. But the RSP is a log of discussions that have happened on RSN and never else, so a discussion here should be logged in the RSP (that's what VG/S is for).
  As to the plugins that highlight certain sources they're entirely the responsibility of the editors who maintain them, and have as much authority. They can be based on the RSP, NPPSG, VG/S, or personal opinion. WP:CITEUNSEEN in particular uses reliability lists from other language Wikipedia's, something that has no basis in enwiki consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Unseen functions as a mirror to Wikipedia consensus (on integrated languages). If two different projects on enwiki have a different consensus for one source, that's when it gets a bit trickier. 11WB (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  The different language Wikipedia operate entirely separately, and may even have differing policies and guidelines. The consensus about a source on one has no barring on a different project, it's an interesting thing to know but doesn't have any consensus backing on enwiki. "frwiki says it's reliable" isn't a valid argument, but the arguements used on frwiki might be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "SlashGear" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I am kind of surprised this source has never been brought up in any discussion as far as I can tell, especially considering I often see this site when looking for information on Google. From my review of the site, I wasn't sure but I think there is some promise. For context, the site focuses on technology coverage and reviews (with coverage of video games) and is owned by Static Media, who also own reliable sites such as SlashFilm and Engadget, as well as some unreliable sites such as SVG and Looper. However, according to the site's Editorial Policies page Static Media investors do not interact with or interfere with our editorial coverage decisions. [...] As such, the Static Media editorial staff are not influenced by direct sales opportunities with brands or advertisers. The page also covers the site's fact checking and ethics policy; they also have a separate Review Policy page. Their About Us page lists SlashGear's staff, which is divided between editors and writers. Whilst I wasn't able to verify every single staff member (mainly because that would take way too much time), there are a few that I found that have experience with other reliable sites such as Digital Trends, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Irish Times and Autoweek. Additionally, they also have a page dedicated to Experts they work with to verify information. Outside of this, they have at least been covered once by Polygon and does have close connection to the aforementioned Engadget. I get the feeling my review could have been done better but I would be grateful to hear what other editors have to say so we can at least mark this site as discussed. CaptainGalaxy 16:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Situationally reliable A brief glance at their coverage indicates they aren't really much of a video games reviewer, and moreso focused on other topics like cars and general tech. I don't really see anything that indicates it wouldn't be unreliable, so for now I'm willing to throw it a bone, but it doesn't seem like something that would be cited frequently given VG doesn't seem to be a main focus of theirs by any metric. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "TheGamer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

In 2021, TheGamer was marked as reliable for content published after August 2020, with this discussion, based on their then editor-in-chief having experience in other sites. "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable". But, during that very discussion, that EiC resigned, as noted by user Haleth. Despite this, TheGamer being labeled as "generally reliable" after a point has stayed, and it appears to have not come into question after all this time.

TheGamer is not actually that different from other Valnet sources, which the "generally reliable" label implies. Valnet sources are something we as a project find ourselves quite routinely discussing. They're largely low quality churnalism with occasional serious journalism. They can't be used to demonstrate notability, they can't be used in BLPs, they should be replaced with a higher quality source when possible, all that. We apply this to all Valnet sourcing, including TheGamer. Matter of fact, a major concern with Valnet's usage on BLPs came from an article published by TheGamer (see this discussion we had in 2025).

To me, a source that cannot be used in BLPs or to establish notability is, by definition, "situational". Not "generally reliable". "Generally reliable" is a label that is usually given to sources that don't have any frequent or outstanding issues. Valnet sources, with the exception of (as of now) Polygon, all have both of those two things. As such, we consider them situational, and there's many arguments to be made that even that is generous. By giving TheGamer the label of "generally reliable", we imply that those issues don't exist with TheGamer, and that they can be used to establish notability or be used in BLPs, when they most definitely share the hallmarks of every other Valnet source out there.

I believe that we should repeal TheGamer's "general reliability" note, and set it back to situational, with all considerations we have with other Valnet sources also applying to it, though maybe with notes of their brief reliability and of editor's finding their content output to be slightly higher quality compared to other Valnet sources. Nothing in regards to how the source is used would change rather than clarifying what we already know about Valnet. λ NegativeMP1 01:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose I don't understand the point of this. There's been no problem with TheGamer as a source, if anything they've been a very usable source that's helped with both verification and reception. I've seen seen some more stalwart critics of using Valnet sourcing such as Zx have argued as it counting for notability. To my understanding the problem with Valnet sources wasn't Valnet itself so much as churnalism. But they've produced several editorial pieces, with indication that they do fact checking, and have Stacey Henley still as EIC I believe, who has some pedigree in the industry herself. I'm just a bit dumbfounded here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I linked to a discussion where there was a consensus that Valnet sources, TheGamer included, shouldn't be on BLPs. It led to the current notice at WP:VALNET that the sources shouldn't be on BLPs. As far as we should be considered, a source that has been agreed upon to not be utilized in BLPs should be "situational". How exactly is that "generally reliable" if there is a very big line that has to be drawn for its use?

"To my understanding the problem with Valnet sources wasn't Valnet itself so much as churnalism" was there not an article published somewhere last year (or 2024, don't remember) that showed Valnet, the corporation, was actively encouraging the churnalism prevalent across all of their sites? Sure, TheGamer happens to be a bit above the rest. That still is not worth the moniker of "generally reliable". λ NegativeMP1 01:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah no I'm sorry, I'm reading that discussion and seeing the usual "Valnet bad" hogwash as if every other corporate outlet isn't doing the same, and that's the extent of the argument. If we'd seen some steady decline in article quality I'd feel you'd have a case, but there hasn't been, in fact they seem to be putting out more editorial content and more actually useful opinion editorial content. We've already seen these sites for the most part operate independent of one another and don't necessarily follow what Valnet as a corporation wants. Even the CBR argument has always felt odd to me, because the claim was "they're going to use AI" and we never saw evidence of that. Instead, it was Dualshockers, and that one rightfully got slammed down.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

My discussion is not on the grounds of a decline in sourcing quality. It is on the grounds of there being a factual, clear line on what TheGamer cannot be used for. Any such jurisdiction is against the very definition of "generally". I also believe I clarified that there would be no impact to how TheGamer is used, but just rather clarifying what its status actually is?

"'m reading that discussion and seeing the usual "Valnet bad" hogwash as if every other corporate outlet isn't doing the same, and that's the extent of the argument" Maybe it's because Valnet has been discussed so much to the point that I doubt people want to regurgitate the same points? There's been countless ones both here and at the Films project. Also, I don't see IGN or any other video game media company try to incorporate AI into their properties with fabricated quotes and writers that were completely made up. The decisions that happened at Dualshockers, and the planned ones at CBR, were corporate ones. The churnalism, sweatshop conditions at Valnet properties is one enforced by the corporation. There are reasons to dislike Valnet and they certainly are not defeated by a mere "other companies do the same thing". Is there proof of other companies doing the same thing? λ NegativeMP1 02:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Valnet stated in response to the accusations of using AI, I'd have to double check when but that statement came about after the CBR accusation (which was from its former EIC), that they had no plans to use it. In fact, this hiring statement on GiveMeSport here outright states they ban the use of AI generated articles at the bottom of the page, under Valnet's policy, and a similar statement from this on linkedin (basing it off google's translation in a preview) stating it was part of their contract that they didn't allow AI-generated material. So I do believe the understanding that this is a corporate stance, unless they're outright lying in the open, is a weird one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

DualShockers was proven to seemingly have AI writers or ones that were fabricated. It is not unreasonable to believe that the company that was described as a sweatshop, and consistently publishes out content with little human involvement to begin with, may have lied about their AI stance. Ultimately, it does not matter what they said; it's what they do. DualShockers, and Valnet as a whole, has a precedent in using AI. IGN and other sources we consider reliable do not have such precedent as of right do not.

Again, this "all sources do the same stuff" idea does not work. Anyways, we're getting away from the central argument. TheGamer is clearly not a "generally reliable" source. It is by definition situational. Consensus exists that there are areas TheGamer, and all Valnet sources for that matter, should not be used in. λ NegativeMP1 03:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

DualShockers appears to have acted on their own, and we have a statement from an active Valnet job offer linked above stating they forbid AI, and I'm absolutely certain a similar statement was released when CBR was accused of such I just can't find it at the moment. But again I ask, where's the decline in quality with TheGamer? Where are we seeing signs of it doing AI or putting up subpar work with poor editorial standards and fact checking? Again, the only argument is "it's Valnet".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I obviously respect @NegativeMP1, but on this I do disagree. The "it's Valnet" argument doesn't work. The AI claim is pure speculation and is not backed up by... anything. The quality of their articles has remained consistent and they have very experienced writers. If nothing is going to change other than a classification "demotion", what is the point of this discussion? 11WB (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Once more, my argument here is not based on a decline in quality. It is based wishing to clarify an existing consensus. "Generally reliable" is demonstrably a lie.

I am not arguing about a decline in quality on Valnet sourcing, nor am I arguing for unreliability entirely. Yet, both of you and 11WB's defenses seem like ones towards the source being demoted to unreliable. Although there is certainly an argument to be had about Valnet sourcing being revisited as a whole (the longer I edit Wikipedia, the less fond I become of all Valnet sources), but that is not what I am arguing for here. I am arguing for clarification of an existing consensus.

"Again, the only argument is 'it's Valnet'" KFM, you have been editing this site longer than I have. There is very good reason why people do not view Valnet sourcing in the best light and you know that. You are framing all criticism of Valnet as if people dislike it for no reason other than "it's Valnet". λ NegativeMP1 04:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Neg, I detailed it below, but I've also been around to understand what the arguments were, and that it was often seen as a soft guideline, not a full on "do not use" or "avoid". I've even discussed with with Ferret at length, pointing out that editors have used the Valnet stance as a bludgeon in AfD's without understanding it's meant to be flexible because of how badly it's worded/handled.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Situational To be in line with other Valnet sources. TheGamer occasionally has some good authors coming in that could be counted as SPS's for notability purposes, but the quality most of the time is still largely the same as other Valnet sources. This shouldn't hamper the site's usage, but again per above they have published material that indicates that they're not exactly good for controversial topics, and implying they're at a level higher than other Valnet sites seems odd when they are clearly working under the same old usual Valnet policies. TheGamer falls under WP:VALNET's designation that it should not traditionally be used for notability and we should treat it that way properly in how we designate it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with @KFM quite strongly on this one. TheGamer is Valnet's own creation, not an acquisition. As a result, they put more effort into it, over their other acquired sites. As @PL said above they do have very experienced writers, Ben Sledge for example, who has written for reliable sources including The Guardian. We are losing gaming sources to AI by the day at the moment, TheGamer has real writers who are publishing real human content, and it's far better in quality than the likes of what we find from Dexerto. They are a reliable source and I strongly oppose labelling them otherwise. 11WB (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  "We are losing gaming sources to AI by the day at the moment, TheGamer has real writers who are publishing real human content, and it's far better in quality than the likes of what we find from Dexerto" firstly, a site having articles written by humans is not an automatic qualifier of reliability. If anything, it's the bare minimum. Secondly, once more, Valnet has precedent in their sources using AI. I am not a fan of the idea that we need to artificially inflate the reputation of subpar sources because other sources are bad. "TheGamer is Valnet's own creation, not an acquisition. As a result, they put more effort into it, over their other acquired sites" this is the first I have ever heard of this logic being used. It doesn't make sense regardless. If anything, a site being made by Valnet themselves makes it less reliable. And, cool, writers have experience. Did you see "with occasional serious journalism" and "Nothing in regards to how the source is used would change rather than clarifying what we already know about Valnet".

  You're also ignoring the existing consensus that TheGamer shouldn't be used in BLP articles. I will repeat, if a site has such a clear line drawn where it should not be used, that is not "generally reliable". Do you believe that TheGamer can be used for BLPs or to establish notability? If the answer is "no" to either of those three, then that's "situational", not "generally reliable". λ NegativeMP1 03:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  Your point on AI usage is purely speculation, without hard proof it's not a valid reason against. As for the other points, I don't really feel the need to go over them at length. Previous discussions on TheGamer have already established these facts. To answer your specific questions, I personally don't have an issue if they are used in BLPs or to establish notability. The site comes under the general Valnet rules, so I'm overruled on that one. 11WB (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  Even KFM pointed out in the discussion that got DualShockers demoted to unreliable again that there were authors there that seemingly didn't exist. That is definitely a possible sign of AI.

  "I personally don't have an issue if they are used in BLPs or to establish notability. The site comes under the general Valnet rules, so I'm overruled on that one" The exact point here is to clarify exactly what that consensus of Valnet rules is to TheGamer. Right now, we imply that they can be used on BLPs or to establish notability, because they are under "generally reliable". λ NegativeMP1 03:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  I replied above, but your argument is a broad "all Valnet sites are the same". When in actuality, they aren't. 11WB (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  That's DualShockers, not TheGamer. So that argument has no relevance to this. Unless there is a reliable source that shows evidence that TheGamer or Valnet at large is actively, and secretly, using AI, there's nothing to prove against their reliability. 11WB (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  I feel like it should be noted that DualShockers also says they have a zero-tolerance for AI and yet let it go through anyway, which we only found about because someone talked about it. If one Valnet site decides to secretly go against what they say they do, who's to say others can't? I've encountered my fair share of bad articles from Valnet that are very AI generated in writing style. It's not exactly implausible and given Valnet's track record (As discussed here) I'm not exactly trusting them to have high quality maintenance standards. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:21, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  It's one site versus another. The sites are different, otherwise we would be discussing one site: 'Valnet.com'. We aren't. They own many sites and this is just one example. It doesn't mean it's happening across all of them. 11WB (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  Valnet owns these sites and manages them under a uniform ownership with sitewide policies often shared, not to mention they have a frequent tendency of laying off all pre-existing staff very frequently and blacklisting people across all sites they own for the same things. They very clearly run and manage all of them. Even if they are separate sites, the leadership at the end of the day is still coming from the same place. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment If I may, the whole "let's get Valnet under a unified approach" thing won't really work because in all honesty it never has. Even some of the most ardent critics of Valnet have argued for the sources having some usage, especially for secondary but also occasionally for notability if it's an editorial and says something meaningful. My understanding the main problem with Valnet stemmed from two fronts:

1. Users citing churnalism (according to users on X, etc etc or so and so fan made THING), or listicles (Top 10 Beards in Gaming) that offered no substance or real commentary.
2. Because Valnet cranks out so much material, the risk of a subject becoming notable because say CBR, TheGamer and Game Rant all discussed it is viable, which leads to concerns that it's effectively citing one big source, even if each website has its own editorial.
3. We have better sources in some cases. This one is slowly turning into had.

But that's in part why different websites are ranked differently; because they are independent. If we have a clear corporate mandate for them to do AI-generated content, I'd agree with Neg; burn them. But instead we have a cited statement showing the opposite as a corporate policy in that job offer page, and it's clearly under Valnet's policy not the site's. So AI concerns shouldn't be a factor here. But I don't see a necessity to drag TheGamer down to situational when it's rather unfortunately been one of the better websites lately.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I've had many discussions with PL about this. I've got to be honest, I don't actually have much of a problem with Valnet in general. I'm quite familiar with Screen Rant, I try to substitute them out where applicable, but they are not bad articles. I feel like this is about Valnet as a whole, so I don't understand why TheGamer was singled out. Hardcore Gamer is also considered reliable and is owned by Valnet, for example. This discussion won't result in meaningful change. I think a proper RfC would be needed for that, with prior planning. 11WB (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Valnet and its associated sites have been criticized for a while now and with no one site ever being considered better than another except for specifically here. And, again, even if AI isn't a factor here, we still have the above issue of this not being reliable for BLPs, among any other quality issues that may present themselves. A "generally reliable" source is not one that's barred from discussing basic facts about real people, and keeping the current ranking advertises it as somehow being exempt from that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll be honest I'm still not entirely sure where the BLP thing got decided. I'll admit I'm not usually in the space of writing those articles, but it seems to be coming up a lot more here in this discussion than I think any of the others we've had ad nauseum about Valnet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's really relevant. Video game specific articles do not have a BLP majority overall. I don't know the statistics but I would guess they are in the minority. 11WB (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It's relevant enough, we do have several developer and voice actors under our banner for example, and statements attributed to developers in articles do fall under that umbrella.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You participated in the discussion where the BLP thing got decided (here). Consensus there was that Valnet should not be used in BLPs. That is, definitively, not a hallmark of a "generally reliable" source. λ NegativeMP1 04:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The amount of defense that is going into a mere clarification about a consensus is concerning. "Situational" does not stop y'all, or any editor, from citing them if they can make a case for it. You all already make a clear distinction between Valnet's usual churnalist slop and articles written by professional authors. When you cite them, you make a clear case as to why they can be cited. Absolutely nothing changes from this other than a mere clarification. λ NegativeMP1 04:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

What you're proposing certainly does make GAN discussions and AfD discussions to boot that much harder. That's been one of my most significant problems with the whole "it doesn't count for notability" aspect, because it gets taken as fact and I've discussed that at least twice on here. The other issue is too I haven't seen a reasonable argument for the situational downgrade; the most applicable thing is this BLP concern, but where's the discussion showing that there was a BLP issue with TheGamer?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Valnet sources have always been questioned at GA and AfD, including TheGamer. And they should be. You can make a case of any "unreliable" or "situational" source to be usable in specific situations (e.g. author). So, what changes? Also, if something is discussed mainly in those types of Valnet articles, or the article relies on Valnet in general, then AfD is probably warranted. λ NegativeMP1 04:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I have already asked this, but if nothing is changing, what is the purpose of this discussion, if not to reaffirm what we all should already know? 11WB (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Because there is a discrepancy in how we label TheGamer and this is technically a change in how we consider a source at face value, even if largely the same. It is something that warrants a discussion. I knew that if I went into the list and made an adjustment to the wording of TheGamer's entry I would've been told to discuss it here or it'd be contested in some other way, regardless if already based on "what we all should already know". λ NegativeMP1 04:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It is entirely viable for an article from TheGamer to be one of your WP:THREE strong points to hold up notability even if you have other sources. I don't see the point in making things harder, and to boot I've been here long enough to see editors also push "well it's already situational, let's just make it unreliable" like we had one editor walk in with in one last Valnet discussion. As for the BLP issue, looking over what you linked above... I wasn't in that discussion. It also doesn't look like it fully reached consensus, just one of concern?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I must have misremembered about you being in the BLP discussion. I apologize for that. However, that was definitely a consensus. It also resulted in our current BLP note to begin with.

"It is entirely viable for an article from TheGamer to be one of your WP:THREE strong points to hold up notability even if you have other sources" yes, if done by a reputable author and of exceptional quality. I do not question that. λ NegativeMP1 04:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know, looks like the discussion fizzled more to me with some agreeing because it's valnet and others wary to downgrade. I'm just not a fan of making things harder for myself or other editors, Neg. I've just experienced too many editors that use this list as a checklist and then get strict, and even at FAC that can be harder. I'll be up front too, I'd actually considered suggested CBR be pushed to situational because the AI concerns with it never appeared to actually manifest, so this throws one hell of a kink into that plan. Either way I think I've said all I can here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

At GANs where I've been the reviewer I've had to explicitly state that whilst I don't mind CBR being cited, it's not considered reliable and can be removed as UNDUE. It's pretty ridiculous. 11WB (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

If I have to start doing that with every Valnet owned source, I'll probably end up moving away from video game articles entirely, in all honesty. 11WB (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there are larger issues at hand here if you would stop editing video game articles because of us wanting to tread caution with a specific type of source. λ NegativeMP1 05:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The point I'm making is basically the same as the point KFM made above, this only ends up making things more difficult elsewhere. 11WB (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Is the "inconvenience" of having to defend the usage of a source or article—which is commonplace even in reliable sources, especially at FAC—really one that would push you towards quitting the video games area entirely? Again, with all Valnet sources, they should be questioned. Most of the time they already are. You just gave examples of you questioning them. Is your argument of reliability here really just because it'd be more "convenient" if the source didn't have any restrictions? λ NegativeMP1 05:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

No, my argument has been that it shouldn't need to be defended. You chose TheGamer specifically for this discussion, so I'll use that. There is no evidence of AI usage on the site, they have very experienced writers and the quality is high. These are the hallmarks of a reliable source. Your argument has been "it's Valnet so it can't be reliable". Put simply, it's a weak argument, regardless of pre-established consensus. 11WB (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

There are effectively two different arguments happening here, one of which was started out of what I can only imagine was the interpretation y'all think I am fighting for unreliability of TheGamer. I am not the biggest fan of Valnet sources, no. But, I did not plan to make that a major point in this discussion.

"Your argument has been 'it's Valnet so it can't be reliable'" Ignoring the oversimplification of legitimate critique to try and make it seem less valid than it actually is, I'm still right. I cited a discussion about Valnet sources being unusable for BLPs and that discussion had a specific focus on TheGamer. I am correct that, by definition, TheGamer is not fully reliable. A source that cannot be used on BLPs is not "generally reliable". What is hard to understand here? λ NegativeMP1 05:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with the labelling of my argument as an "oversimplification". You said verbatim: 'Again, with all Valnet sources, they should be questioned.' 11WB (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Am I wrong? Do I need to explain why the work of properties owned by a company notorious for low-quality churnalism and described as a digital sweatshop should be taken with some caution?

Yes, grouping up all Valnet properties is a reasonable concern both editorially and in how we characterize sources here. All of these sources are under the Valnet subsection. More discussions than can be counted have considered Valnet to be largely a landfill. And here, I have cited one such discussion multiple times regarding its use in BLPs. And this time, specifically TheGamer. It is an applicable argument.

There may have been two different arguments going on here, but they most definitely converge with comments trying to downplay critiques of Valnet, from both you and KFM. λ NegativeMP1 05:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to continue this discussion. I'll address these points when I'm back online. I imagine this discussion will have more input by then as well. 11WB (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

If I'm going a bit overboard here or mischaracterizing your arguments, then I don't mean to. But it does feel like an oversimplification to simply say that the arguments here boil down to "Valnet bad". λ NegativeMP1 05:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)