So, people don't want to believe Kotaku, so they use another source that no one's ever heard of to back up their argument. People know of Kotaku. Who the heck is this RGPsite guy? Why should I care what he has to say? What info has he ever given before anyone else that turned out to be true?
Besides, saying he was told "quite recently" that Nomura was still hard at work doesn't prove anything. How recent does "very recently" mean? He could very well have been told this right before the cancellation. Nomura told people again in May to be patient. Whatever news this RPGSite guy has could very well just be from a time period shortly after Nomura's plea for people to be patient and before the cancellation.
I just don't understand why this RPGSite guy is more credible than Kotaku. Why does his word trump Kotaku's again?
Kotaku are generally a semi-reliable blog site that hasn't actually named their source(s). RPGSite is a specialist website that has posted interviews from Square-Enix personnel before suggesting they have a direct link or point of contact rather than what sounds to be second-hand info. We can't be sure that Kotaku's source works at Square-Enix or is in anyway related as they haven't given any information regarding who or what the source is. That's not to say the rumour is false, but I don't see why you'd suggest Kotaku are anymore reliable than RPGSite.
Given some of the crappy stuff they've done in the past (including outright lies which stealthily get changed once spotted), it wouldn't surprise me if Kotaku made this up for the web hits.