Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Wait, before you lynch me - read below.

I've prepared a summary of rationales presented below, discounting obviously-canvassed opinions and single-purpose accounts. I've also discounted improper rationale such as 'content is interesting' and 'I've decided to assert that this is(n't) notable, but I'm not going to share any further reasoning with you, closing admin.'

Keep:
 * Subject is notable within a narrow field - naturally, widespread independent sourcing will be hard to find, but this is not necessary
 * Article needs work, but has sufficient reliable coverage to maintain verifiability and notability

Delete:
 * Subject is only notable within a narrow field - due to the lack of widespread independent sourcing, article is not viable
 * Sources with ties to the subject cannot be used as primaries

This is an incredibly-compounded version of the dozens of arguments I just spent twenty minutes reading through. Again, people saying "it is/isn't notable/interesting" and "first AFD was wrong/right" - while your participation is appreciated, I don't get much from your assertion, as I am still working on the technology necessary to read your mind.

While it comes pretty close, consensus leans towards delete - unfortunately, while Natami clearly has its supporters, stronger sources are needed to support a stand-alone article. I agree that a merge would be the best idea - if anyone would like, I can pull up a copy of the article for inclusion in the main Amiga article.

I understand this decisions isn't going to be popular with some people (heck, any close is guaranteed to disappoint half of you), but please understand that this is an unbiased close. I'm only going off consensus and policy.

I'd like to commend everyone for (mostly) keeping a cool head. If there are any concerns regarding my close that I haven't addressed, click on my signature to tell me. Cheers, m.o.p  04:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Natami
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Relisting debate per appeals via email and on my talk page. Original AfD had a problem with WP:CANVASS and single purpose accounts. Original AfD rationale is "The article does not meet WP:N. It has two references to Natami's vendor, which cannot evidence notability as they are not independent of the subject and its creator. The further reading section has a link to a personal website, which is does not meet WP:RS. Google Web returns 373 results for "Natami" AND Amiga -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum; and limiting the results to English, there are 299. Most of the results appear to be irrelevant (they are Wikipedia mirrors or about something else) and the relevant results do not meet WP:RS." by User:Rilak. I am neutral I was originally neutral as I was uninvolved in the subject and weighing community consensus. Having participated now in the AFD, I now have an opinion and that is to Delete. v/r - TP 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete : My opinion has not changed on this, for me the very first line of the article says a lot "NatAmi (short for Native Amiga, is an unreleased Amiga clone motherboard)" in that until it actually gets released it is unlikely to get the significant coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate notability. WP is an encyclopaedia, it is not a forum for collating fancruft. The first close was correct, admins who make such calls should be supported, WP:N is clear on this, the article needs coverage from sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. That said I see no bar to re-creation once it has gone on sale and it has received significant coverage independent of the subject has been received. Mtking (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is quite interesting to see your obsession with deletions, and the comments about your behavior in that regard on your talk page. Perhaps you're not the person one should consider most reliable when it comes to evaluating if a deletion was correct or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Explanation Demanded His Royal Majestic Highness Rilak has issued a decree that Amiga Future magazine is not a reliable source and cannot be quoted in Wikipedia. His "reasoning" excludes every Amiga magazine that ever existed or ever will exist.  So my question is: What Amiga magazine is allowed to be quoted on Wikipedia?  I want a list.  Or is it true as people say, that Wikipedia has no actual rules and applies wildly different standards to each individual article?  I demand a list of Amiga magazines that are considered "reliable sources" by wikipedia so that I may make proper edits using only reliable sources.  I am neutral. 108.12.101.22 (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — 108.12.101.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I pass no judgment on if "Amiga Future magazine" is a WP:RS but what is very clear is that it is not sufficiently independent from the project to be used to judge the notability of that subject. Mtking (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it "very clear" that Amiga future is not sufficiently independent from the project to be used to judge notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The blatant personal attack from the IP above pretty much proves that those appealing deletion are not doing so because of a reason, but to have a soapbox. Let's close this farce now. Rilak (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a very interesting idea of what constitutes proof. So you want to close this now on the basis of statements from one person that you consider proof of the motivations of everyone objecting to your point of view, while it at the same time holding those opposing you to a far higher standard. Says it all, really.


 * Your blatant personal attack against me pretty much proves that you are not neutral. Do not accuse me of "appealing the deletion" of Natami article.  I have never appealed the deletion of anything ever.  Unlike you, I am neutral.  I don't care if this article gets deleted or not.  I simply care if rules are followed.  Or if rules even exist in the first place.  I notice that you wrote quite a lot of words without answering the question: Which Amiga magazines are reliable sources according to your rules?  Which Amiga magazines are allowed to be quoted on wikipedia?  We the editors have a right to know. 108.12.101.22 (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — 108.12.101.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hmmm - I answered your question, now stop badgering others please. Mtking (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Mtking, The article was edited If your personal judgement is to delete the Natami Article due to the fact that the original contributor wrote an unfortunate first line, it seems me quite odd.
 * This was the original phrase:
 * "NatAmi (short for Native Amiga, is an unreleased Amiga clone motherboard)"
 * Then I want to inform you that I edited the phrase of the previous contributor to a more accetable form:
 * NatAmi (short for Native Amiga), is the name of an ongoing hardware project,
 * Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - As the nominator in the first AfD, I found no coverage in reliable sources. During the course of the AfD, no coverage in reliable sources was presented. As of now, I see no reliable sources presented. WP:N is crystal clear that the basic criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources (the other criteria are concerned with whether the article is encyclopedic or not). This article fails to meet it, and continues to meet it. The appeals to the closing administrator via E-mail and the talk page, unless they specifically addressing the issue from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, do not warrant the recreation and relisting of an article deleted through consensus. What is there to discuss? Are there suddenly reliable sources available? No, there aren't any. Was there a credible serious flaw in the discussions in the AfD? No, "You deleted something I like," is not an argument. I am unsure as to the policies and guidelines regarding appeals to deletions in these circumstances (as I am not an administrator), but I would suggest speedy delete be considered. To recreate a deleted article, which is essentially the same as the deleted version, for no reason other than because a few people aren't happy with its deletion, and to require that those in favor of deletion somehow rebut complaints instead of arguments, will effectively and perpetually prevent any article from being deleted. Rilak (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep looks like an interesting article to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * May I recommend you have a read of WP:ITSINTERESTING. Mtking (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Why are people asking for its deletion? Natami is 100% notable. There are videos on YouTube, interviews, documentation, benchmarks, and so on. 150.204.51.181 (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — 150.204.51.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If that is a rhetorical question, then belittling those in favor of deletion by implying that the topic is so well known that thinking of deleting it justifiably invokes surprise is not a good idea since it does not evidence notability per WP:N (and neither does asserting that the topic is "100% notable"). If that is not a rhetorical question, people are asking that this article be deleted because one of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:N) is that the topic must have received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. In the context of this discussion, videos on YouTube about the Natami are either primary sources (if produced by the creator of the topic, or those affiliated with it) or are not reliable sources (if produced by fans, for example) because it is a self-published source. Regarding interviews, these can be evidence of notability, but only if they are published by a reliable source. The interviews presented so far are not published in reliable sources, but at fansites. Regarding documentation, these are primary sources, and thus fail the requirement of being secondary sources. Regarding benchmarks, these can be evidence for notability, but like interviews, they need to be published in reliable sources. Rilak (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable. Covered in Polish Chip magazine http://www.chip.pl/artykuly/trendy/2010/07/amiga-wciaz-smiga?b_start:int=2, which is a major computer magazine CHIP_%28magazine%29. Covered multiple time on the Polish Amiga Portal .GL1zdA (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please check the translation. That is trivial coverage.  Mere mentions of NatAmi.--v/r - TP 13:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have to check the translation because it's my native language. If you want more, here: IDG is publishing every news about Natami which appeared on PPA:

GL1zdA (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * http://fider.idg.pl/data.asp?d=24&zr=1462&j=1
 * http://fider.idg.pl/data.asp?d=38&zr=1462&j=1
 * http://fider.idg.pl/data.asp?d=45&zr=1462&j=1
 * http://fider.idg.pl/data.asp?d=52&zr=1462&j=1
 * http://fider.idg.pl/data.asp?d=129&zr=1462&j=1
 * IDG is not publishing news about the Natami, IDG is running an indiscriminate news aggregate that finds news stories about the Natami from the Web. The links are not to IDG websites too. The http://fider.idg.pl/ news aggregate is not even discriminate as to what news it indexes, given that some of the links are about road construction and wrestling competitions. You might as well claim that Google is publishing news stories about the Natami because their web crawlers are indexing Natami news from Amiga fansites, and are providing short summaries of them and links to them. Rilak (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a webcrawler nor a search engine. It's aggregates news in the same way PR Newswire aggregates press releases. You can't publish there arbitrary news, you have to be approved by them. It gathers information from selected sources of the Polish Internet, not only computer related news (that's why you have links about road construction and wrestling competitions).GL1zdA (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence to support the claim that IDG is selective in its news aggregation activities? Rilak (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On the left you have a list of those, whose content appears there. You won't find news outside of this list. 82.210.134.153 (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant "selective" as in "IDG staff putting everything posted by the websites in the list through editorial review before adding links to them" not as in "we only add links to some sites". Rilak (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * These sites where verified by them. You can't just send your rss address and spam them and you get removed if you abuse the service. If IDG trusts PPA I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be a reliable source for w wikipedia article.
 * This is what you call evidence? How is one supposed to verify the truthfulness of your claims? It is not obvious to me (and likely everyone else) where these claims are coming from. I noticed no statements or links on the IDG page that provide insight into whether scrutiny has gone into selecting the links in question. How about something like a link to an IDG web page that states IDG performs editorial judgment? Rilak (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can try to add a website yourself http://fider.idg.pl/formularz.asp?opcja=1 and see if it will be approved to the 'IT pages' category. If you need further proof you can always mail them about their policies: http://www.idg.pl/info_kontakt.html .GL1zdA (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So what you are really saying is that you can't provide any evidence for your claims, correct? And then you tell me to contact IDG for comment on the nature of their Fider feature. I'm not going to do that. It is possible that I could fabricate a response favorable to my position. The same possibility also applies to every other person and group. I consider the matter settled: the IDG Fider is not a RS. Although appearances can be deceiving, it really does look like IDG is indiscriminately aggregating news from a number of sources, likely with a bit of selectivity such as news from producers from a certain region. Other than that, there is no evidence on IDG's website that they review what they link to. All claims to the contrary cannot be substantiated. Rilak (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The reliability and origin of the sources used are entirely appropriate for the narrow scope and non-extraordinary claims being made in this article. I'm amused to see that the Amiga fans are still hard at it, I have no idea why they are, but good luck to them. I wouldn't expect to see this covered in Spectrum, I would expect to see it in the Amiga community sources that have done so. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here is demanding that there be something like a two-page spread in the largest general-audience publication in order for this topic to be considered notable. But whatever coverage is presented here as evidence of notability nevertheless needs to meet WP:N, WP:RS, and any other relevant policy or guideline that WP:N and WP:RS deems relevant. Why should this particular topic be exempt? Rilak (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has written that this topic should be exempt, but you can't say of every source that it's not reliable only because it's not a PhD thesis or article published in NY Times. You can't say that sources which are specializing in a narrow field are not reliable because in *your opinion* they are to narrow.GL1zdA (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has written that this topic should be exempt from WP:N and WP:RS? My interpretation of Andy's last sentence is that the standards should be loosened so that "Amiga community sources" can be deemed acceptable because that's the best coverage this topic can muster. It could be said that Andy was a bit ambiguous as what "Amiga community sources" and Spectrum refers to (IEEE Spectrum is the first thing that comes to my mind) is unclear, but given that the sources presented in the first AfD were mostly fansites and blogs, it is reasonable to think that these sources are the "Amiga community sources". Without further comment from Andy, all of this should not be seen as conclusive, but it is certainly reasonable to respond such comments in a manner that leaves the opportunity of clarification open. Lastly, I didn't say that specialized publications are not reliable because their scope is narrow. I would very much like a diff that supports your claim to the contrary. Your portrayal of my reasons for rejecting of the sources in question is either mistaken or a deliberate misrepresentation in an attempt to discredit them. Just so we are clear, I am saying that the specialized publications and coverage presented so far are not reliable because most of them are published by fans in non-professional circumstances, circumstances that won't meet WP:RS, not because they are narrow in scope or audience. Rilak (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * CommentArticle edited and other sources were found to keep Natami article alive. Hello people at Wikipedia. I impoved again the article and inscribed Natami in the phenomenon of Home computer remake and retrogaming with more precision, removing some unwanted words that could make it resemble fancruft speaking.

More: I found an italian historic site that reports all the major remake homebrew efforts of the last years (natami is just cited once, but the presence in that site confirms my assumptions that natami belongs to that home computer remakes criteria. Also it confirms that my preamble into Natami article philosophy section regarding homebrew computers was not just "Original Work" and my personal POV. "Homebrew remakes" are an interesting emerging phenomenon amongst hobbyists.) ComputerHistory.it.

Also I found an interview with one of the Natami Developers on the pages of a Retrocomputing site in Poland Interwiew on Retroage site. This site is not related with Amiga. It a site dedicated to Retrocomputing as a more wide topic, and they spotted the Natami project, so they check the ongoing of the project by interviewing one of the developers.

Also some days ago (june 15) French Amiga Online Magazine Obligement interviewed a young developer who is involved into AmigaOS 4 and perhaps into Natami Project too: Interview on Obligement site. This article makes Obligement leading the "Further reading" section of Natami article being present twice in the list. With respect, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC) I'm a fan of retrocomputing that for years he devoted himself to the study of old machines and as a result of the history of computing. In this site I have gathered the results of my research. Legal ComputerHistory.it amateur is a product of information is not periodic, non-commercial and non-professional. This site is not a news organization and is updated without any periodicity, at the discretion of its author. Therefore, it can not be considered in any way as an editorial product under Law No  62 of 7.03.2001.'" (translated via Google Translate). This is conclusively a self-published, personal website detailing the amateur (as in not paid) historian research of a fan and is therefore not a reliable source. Rilak (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S.: As a contributor am I entitled to vote to keep the article, or voting for deleting/keeping is a privilege of Wikipedia Moderators only? Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the reliability of Obligement, this publication claims that it is a fanzine so it is not a reliable source. This has already been mentioned in the first AfD.. Rilak (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the reliability of www.computerhistory.it, the website's own about page (http://www.computerhistory.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=82), states "'Who are
 * The Computer History italian site is a site collecting information about the history of computers from an italian point of view. It is maintained by an amateur but is collecting reliable infos and testimonies about italian side of computer history, and it publish also the reliable contributions of any people who want to partecipate the collecting of infos. Wikipedia also is maintaned by amateurs and organized to collect infos provided by external contributors in the same way of Computer History. The difference is that Wikipewdia is not maintaned by a single person and people can contribute directly. So what?

On the net there are many resources on the history of computing, unfortunately mostly in English and Italian with little information on the computers. This site aims to fill this gap by documenting the history of computing with a particular interest in Italian. Can not miss the technical content such as descriptions of machines and technologies of the past. But the intent is to go further and provide an overview of the evolution of computing and the history of the companies that participated in this revolution. The site collects the results of own research of its webmaster, but it is open to everyone Voglino to contribute articles or photos or documents providing useful to the development of the site. If you have photos, manuals, advertising, software or hardware related to computers first Italian contattetemi!'"(translated via Google Translate)
 * Mr. Rilak, you are so quick to find quotes to diminish the reliability of a site, so you will apprecciate the Computer History Mission Statement declaration, whose principles are very solid (http://www.computerhistory.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43:benvenuti-su-computerhistoryit&catid=32:varie): "'To give a future to our past


 * Also the vaste majority of Computer Museums are maintained by amateurs and not maintained periodically, want you to deprecate any information provided by these online museums?


 * And more, the definition of amateurish site in Italy is a disclaimer to avoid to be obliged to hire one professional journalist (in Italy are professionals only those who are registered in the Official Book of Journalists) as being "director responsible under the law" for the site itself. Also it is required that the maintainer is obliged to register the site as a real printed newspaper under Italian Law about Publishing Press (it requires to be enlisted in the list of printed publications in the nearest Local Court of Justice in Italy Legge n. 47 del 1948 -legge sulla stampa-). Giornale Online on Italian Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the argument in the first paragraph, the comparisons to Wikipedia are invalid because Wikipedia is not a reliable source (this shouldn't be an unknown fact). Regarding the argument in the second paragraph, appreciation of the site's goals and "principles" (from the context of your argument, I think a better word is "honor" or "morality") is irrelevant to the question of reliability. Determining reliability (or the lack of) is not about finding nice things (or bad things) to say about a source: "Mr. Smith was always such a nice teacher who gave his all to help his students," means absolutely nothing at all when it comes to arguing that Mr. Smith is a reliable source. Likewise, "Mr. Anderson is mean," does not go towards in an argument that he is an unreliable source. Regarding the argument that because most computer history museums are run by amateurs, they should be considered reliable, otherwise a large number of sources would be rejected: This does not go towards indicating whether the site in question is reliable or not. The argument really sounds like, "You're being mean, so deem these sources reliable so you don't hurt their feelings." Regarding your final paragraph, you conveniently ignore the fact that the owner of the site in question stated that he was an amateur before the legal disclaimer. Rilak (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding retrorage.net, it is interesting to note that when I attempted to view what I think are forum posts that describe the site linked to from http://www.retroage.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=21&id=79&Itemid=204, registration was required. This looks like a fansite, an unreliable source. How many professional news sites or magazines require one to register in order to find out what the site or magazine is? Rilak (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Disregard the above, the requirement to register was a temporary server issue. Rilak (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding retrorage.net, there is no indication that it is published under the conditions required by WP:N and WP:RS. The five pages found under http://www.retroage.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=21&id=79&Itemid=204 do not describe precisely what the site is. There is no mention of publisher, of a paid professional editorial staff, nothing. Rilak (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for a reliable source to have paid staff on WP:RS.GL1zdA (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RS does not require that a publication have a paid professional staff. But WP:RS says "The following specific examples [the contents of WP:RS] cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." Do you really think that a site that does not even unambiguously say what it is indicates reliability? Do you think that a site that does not even say whether its run by fans or by a publisher/media company is indicative of reliability? Do you think that not even disclosing who (as in fan, professional journalist, or scholar, not as in the names of the authors) writes the site content goes towards reliability? I don't. If a source does not present any information about itself, so that as a result nobody can examine the information to determine how reliable it is, is it not reasonable to deem it unreliable due to insufficient evidence? Rilak (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think this article is notable enough, only that it is missing a few 3rd-party references, but it seems those 3rd-party references are hard to find... --Marko75 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see WP:ITSNOTABLE. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  06:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: This was very properly deleted in the first place, and should not have been relisted here; if any of the Keep proponents had a problem with the close, DRV is the proper venue for it.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  19:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Marko75 3rd party references are increasing step by step, as long as Natami has now being complete, and it is expected soon a release for common users. As shown by the links I found, the actual interest of 3rd party sites is focused on interviewing the authors and developers of Natami. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the first AfD, I think there needs to be clarification in regards to the role third-party sources have. When it comes to determining notability, coverage in third-party references are not the only consideration; that is, by itself, the property of being independent of the topic (third-party) is no enough. WP:N requires the third-party references to be reliable sources as well; and the basic criteria for determining that is WP:RS. Rilak (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * SO which criteria of WP:RS did Amiga Future not meet? GL1zdA (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Natami article is functional to keep a more wide coverage on Wikipedia about the phenomenon of Homebuilt computer and Home computer remake. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: NatAmi is recognizable even by computer hardware stores and therefore complies with WP:N -  Besides user Rilak is not neutral because of his engagement in promoting competitive hardware solutions like PPC processors.  PA-SEMI processors are crucial part of competitive to NatAmi, AmigaOne X1000 system by A-EON. This clearly constitutes a bias and it is unacceptable. Thus will be reported.LordBanter (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC) — LordBanter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. v/r - TP 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How does being sold (I assume this is what "recognizable computer hardware stores" means) by a computer hardware store satisfy WP:N's requirement for the topic to have been covered non-trivially by multiple independent, reliable secondary sources? And what evidence do you have for your ad hominem assertion that I am not neutral because I am promoting PPC-based Natami competitors? In the last AfD, I was portrayed as someone full of Amiga hate. Now I am involved in the Amiga business? Sorry, but that does not compute. Rilak (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - complies with WP:N. I dont see why it was deleted in its first AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE: asserting that x is notable does not explain why it is notable and it certainly does not refute the evidence that supports the claim that x is not notable. Rilak (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete (I am re-pasting my opinion from the original AfD, as it has not changed, as well as a followup comment I wrote in the original discussion...unsure why this went straight back online and not to DRV, but here we go again) merge any verifiable content to the Amiga article's hardware clones section. Total lack of reliable sources, and while I, as a geek, have considerable sympathy for the outpouring ofWP:ILIKEIT-style arguments above, they are not in any way good arguments for inclusion. The "Obligement" source is the closest thing we have to a passable source but I can't find any evidence on the site that it would pass muster as a reliable source, per therelevant guidelines. Micro Mart might suffice as a reliable source if anyone could produce the alleged coverage and if it is significant, independent, etc. I note that a search for "Natami" on Micro Mart's website produces zero results, although I do know that that does not necessarily mean that they have never featured this product in print. Regarding AmigaFuture, I think the original reviewing admin said it best regarding whether a publication of such limited scope can actually be used to establish notability. It's certainly verifiable, but...it reminds me of using a local newspaper to demonstrate the local notability of a local politician. Which is to say, it reminds me of something that's not notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  06:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This way you can say any non-PC computer related publication can't be used to establish notability.GL1zdA (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So you basically !voting twice. The point being?--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Amiga Future, @ ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ Amiga Future reminds you of a Local Newspaper? LOL! When it was based in England, published by an indipendent publisher, it reached even more than 100.000 copies sold (if I remember well) There are in those times Amiga magazines that surpassed the number of 1.000.000 copies sold. Unfortunately the fact Amiga community shrinked, made AFuture selling actually only a few thousand copies (1000? 2000? 3000?), and Amiga community was lucky that a reseller like Vesalia keep the magazine alive by supporting it wit funds. But AFuture is a magazine with a decennal (or more) presence in newspaper stores in all GB (and now in Germany too)and had demonstrated its professionality and indipendence with literally hundreds of critical articles about Amiga products during its long lifetime. You can't judge an editorial product just by consider its actual shrinked community of reference, but only by checking its editorial line by inspecting globally quality of all issues and professionality of articles during all its lifetime. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @BabbaQ: Uhm, no, I'm voting once. The previous discussion was not moved to this new discussion. @GL1zdA: You'll have to explain that conclusion. That's not what I said at all. @Raffaele: I can definitely judge an editorial product by its "community of reference." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article does not fulfill notability guidelines required for inclusion on Wikipedia. Koft (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How might I ask?--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:Not notable Which guidelines? GL1zdA (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From context, I think the guideline being referred to is WP:N. This isn't exactly a vague reference is it? Rilak (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge The content of the article meets Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which is the reason we are right back here at AfD again. Sources such as Amiga Future which is a published computer magazine also tends to indicate notability. There also appeared to be some confusion that an article published in Amiga Future couldn't be used as a source for the NatAmi Wikipedia article because Amiga Future focuses almost exclusively on "Amiga" topics. This is quite simply not the case and Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline makes this quite clear. If this were the case, we couldn't use MacUser for articles relating to Apple, or Popular Science (or another science journal) for science and technology related articles. Amiga Future is not published by the developers of "NatAmi", so per Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline, Amiga Future very much can be used for the purposes of establishing notability.  Because the material is verifiable, the only other alternative would be to merge the material in this article into a larger article. One option would be Amiga, however given that we have a number of other articles about other Amiga clone hardware, if we were to merge this material somewhere, it might be best to merge the whole lot of them into a larger article about Amiga clones.  While I have not personally witnessed the "PPC promotion" by User:Rilak that LordBanter mentions above, I too have to question why exactly it is that Rilak is seemingly obsessed with deleting this article at any cost, including making unsupported statements in the first AfD. This is despite the fact that deletion of verifiable material goes contrary to Wikipedia's deletion policy, Wikipedia's editing policy, and even the instructions for using the articles for deletion process itself. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Imagine if we used a Star Trek The Magazine or the Star Trek Encyclopedia to determine notability of The Genesis Project from Star Trek II The Wrath of Kahn? --v/r - TP 22:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to compare a real object like NatAmi to the Project Genesis fictional subtopic of a well known movie seems a little silly. Although oddly enough, there was once an AfD for Project Genesis (closed as keep) and later independently merged to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Now, if you want to talk Star Trek in general, then both of your examples can and are used for other Star Trek subtopics for the purposes of Wikipedia's verifiability policy and notability guideline. Star Trek: The Magazine, published by Fabbri Publishing (independent of Paramount Studios) is in fact used per WP:V for your very example of Project Genesis and other subtopics in the Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan article. As for The Star Trek Encyclopedia, just to take a handful off the top of the search results:          Wikipedia's original research policy also explicitly states that tertiary sources, including other encyclopedias, which are reliably published may be used as a reliable source here on Wikipedia. The Star Trek Encyclopedia very much appears to meet those requirements when it comes to the topic of Star Trek.  Getting back to Amiga Future, that magazine is a reliable secondary source. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite my fear of getting too far off trek (worst...joke...ever) : Star Trek: The Magazine is used to supply verifiable information in those articles, not to function as the solitary foundation for establishing notability of these Star Trek topics, which is what is at issue here. If ST:TM were literally the only arguably reliable third party publication in history to discuss the USS Enterprise, that would indeed be problematic from a notability standpoint. I frankly have a bit of a soft spot for wildly geeky stuff like Natami and Amiga evolution projects in general, so I'm more than happy to change my vote, but I have yet to be convinced that Amiga Future can function as the sole foundation for establishment of notability in this case, and all the other sources seem to have been struck down as fanzines, etc. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you aren't confident that my "assessments" (no connotation to authority intended) of the sources presently described as fanzines (or other fan-created material) are well supported by the facts, you are welcome ask that I elaborate as to how I arrived at that conclusion. Generally, I seek out a site's About page, as well as copyright (generally reliable sources are protective of their content due to the cost that went into producing it; also helpful in evidencing whether the content is published by a publisher), contact (generally reliable sources have staff handling inquiries, and its authors have E-mail addresses hosted by the publication or publisher), and information of this sort. Rilak (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In case it was unclear, I am confident that your assessments are accurate. I've checked them myself. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - In the first AfD, and this one, the reliability of a magazine, Amiga Future, is in dispute. In the first AfD, I took a closer look at Amiga Future and its publisher: Link. In later discussions, an editor disputed my arguments by stating that the fact Amiga Future was sponsored by a computer reseller had no bearing on its reliability, specifically its independence from the subject and its creator (despite my argument not covering finances) Link. Because these statements were made in response to my argument that Amiga Future was not reliable due to the nature of its publisher, APC & TCP, I assumed that this editor was referring to APC & TCP as the "computer reseller". I was wrong to assume. In light of new information Link, it appears that Amiga Future is sponsored by Vesalia (http://www.vesalia.de/), a German company that describes itself as, "Your Amiga shop since 1987," (top right hand corner of its home page). Vesalia also happens to offer the NatAmi at its online shop: . The argument that Amiga Future is not independent, given its direct commercial links to an Amiga reseller that is offering the NatAmi has just gotten stronger. This, combined with the nature of APC & TCP (discussed in the first AfD), reaffirms my position that Amiga Future is not a reliable source capable of supporting the notability of Natami. Rilak (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow Rilak, talk about reaching... We don't consider publications unreliable because of who happens to buy an ad placement or carry a particular publication in their place of business or online store. This would be like arguing that Macworld is an unreliable source for an article about the latest version of Mac OS X or the latest generation of Macintosh computer because Apple buys ad placements in the magazine and carries the magazine in their retail Apple Store locations. Further, you also can't go back and claim that Amiga Future magazine which has been published for far longer than NatAmi has existed is now an unreliable source for Amiga topics because an Amiga retailer which plans to eventually sell NatAmi happens to buys ad placements in the publication and carries it in their online store. I see some other books and publications in their online store, too  would you also try to claim these are unreliable for use as a source on Wikipedia as well?  As before Rilak, you are still making claims which are not backed up by policy and you just can't seem to stand that someone was able to prove you wrong. See WP:STICK and as I said in the last AfD, put on some damned clothes! --Tothwolf (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your analogies still seem a bit wonky to me. If Veselia is essentially keeping Amiga Future in business by "sponsoring" it, that's quite different from Apple buying ad space in Macworld (which certainly doesn't need Apple's ad dollars to continue operations). That said, we don't really know the nature of Veselia and Amiga Future's relationship (this information is coming entirely from one Keep voting participant in this AfD), and I'm inclined to give the publication the benefit of the doubt in this case. Not that that addresses my concerns, or TP's, or several others'. Also -- and this is my personal opinion, take it or leave it -- I think you should reconsider continuing to toss barbs at Rilak as you do in your last paragraph. You're not quite being uncivil, but your comments seem, to me, to be designed to get a rise out of him, and they don't have much to do with your other arguments (which are well-taken, even if I don't entirely agree with them). Saying "you just can't seem to stand that someone was able to prove you wrong," for example, is clearly unnecessary and flirts with being an assumption of bad faith. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but after I caught Rilak repeatedly outright making things up in the last AfD and now with his continued behaviour here, I'm going to call him out for it. As many, many others have previously said, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. I think KillerChihuahua probably said it best: "We assume good faith absent evidence to the contrary. Once that evidence appears, it is not a failure of AGF to point out failings or misdeeds; rather, it is a failing of common sense not to do so. [...]" WP:AGF itself also states: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary" I'm known for being pretty blunt when it comes to cases such as this, so I'll make no apologies for being blunt with Rilak while calling him out for making false and misleading statements. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not that I am saying Amiga Future is a reliable source to determine notability; but for a moment let's assume everyone agrees it is. Isn't the criteria for WP:GNG multiple significant reliable sources?  We have yet to see anything else greater than mere mentions in any other source that isn't a forum, blog, ect.--v/r - TP 17:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First, the first AfD was closed as "delete", which wasn't the best solution given what I pointed out since we can still merge this material elsewhere. A no consensus close on the other hand would have allowed a merge discussion to take place on a talk page but that wasn't how it was closed. As for the specific wording of the notability guideline, that's actually an interesting point, and something with which I'm pretty up to date on. The short version is that in many cases where we have a single reliable source which is very strong (ie, detailed coverage, not just a few sentences) we don't need more than one reliable source for the purposes of notability guideline. That said, in many cases we often absolutely do need more than one reliable source for the purposes of verifiability. The current wording of the notability guideline is fairly recent compared with how long the original wording was present. It was changed mid-discussion with the larger discussion stalled and in limbo after Gavin.collins began pushing his view of "list notability" (and other strong opinions on "notability" which later led to his community ban). It was never revisited after the battles and other disruption from Gavin.collins and the RFC on lists which helped clarify the "list notability" issue.  While the current wording is still less than ideal because it can be interpreted in the way in which you described, the old wording wasn't exactly ideal either... The long standing wording was (or had been similar to): "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred."  and had been changed to: "More than one secondary source is generally required to provide verifiable evidence that an article topic can meet the requirements of Wikipedia's content policies."  This was reverted back to the long standing version  changed to "required"  changed by yet another editor to "expected"  changed by Gavin.collins to something radically different  (which was then reverted ) and it has remained as "expected" during/since the Gavin.collins mess. A check of the edit history will show just how disruptive the "discussions" with Gavin.collins were. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see how that pertains to this AfD, especially considering that the reliability of your source to establish notability is in dispute. A single source can be used for WP:V.  Why don't we bring the source in question to the reliable sources noticeboard for discussion?  If you like that idea, I'm happy to WP:AGF on your part to open the discussion; or I can do it if you'd like.--v/r - TP 01:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear. Generally when we have enough material for a standalone article, we need more than one reliable source in order to make sure all of the material meets the verifiability policy. This is what people were trying to make clear in the notability guideline changes I mentioned above. As for the notability issue itself, well...you brought it up, and I answered (which unfortunately didn't have a simple answer). ;) I don't mind if someone brings up Amiga Future on WP:RS/N, as long as it is done in a neutral manner (as in "Is this publication a reliable source?"). I was actually considering doing this myself but hadn't had a chance to do so just yet, so if you want to do it, go for it. We really should see if we can find someone who can read German who can look into this further too. I'm pretty sure there is more material out there that we just haven't located yet. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue of multiple reliable sources appears to be moot now with the addition of another reliable source to the article by Smallman12q. While this news article is in Russian it is still reliable (about) and we don't limit sources to English only. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a real project, with a real working board, and there is coverage in RS. Smallman12q (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: appears to be no sources (either in the article or discernible from Google News or Books) from outside the Amiga enthusiast community, so no indication of notability. Even ignoring this point, the article is poorly sourced and dominated by a WP:INDISCRIMINATEly detailed 'Specifications' section. (I would also question why this article was renominated without first going through WP:DRV). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because several editors followed the instructions at WP:DRV which includes discussing with the closing administrator first. The closing administrator agreed to relist because of the perception that the rationale was based on an opinion of the strength of a source.--v/r - TP 15:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hrafn, actually, there are mainstream sources, including the one Smallman12q added to the article, (in Russian) which I noted just above your comment. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Новый Регион/'New Region' coverage appears very short and superficial -- the sort of coverage you'd expect from a mere summarising/paraphrasing of project blurbs.HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look superficial to me. They give the project as much coverage as I would expect to see from an English source such as Wired and certainly as much as would have been given by a program such as Computer Chronicles or similar. They also cover quite a lot of technology-related news in addition to mainstream news. While we don't use them as a source for a huge number of articles here on the English Wikipedia because it is a Russian news site, nr2.ru is widely used on the Russian Wikipedia.  --Tothwolf (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ten sentences is "significant" coverage? Rilak (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider two detailed paragraphs in Russian plus a photo of the board itself plenty of coverage for a single reliable source, particularly since this is a mainstream news company and not a news site dedicated solely to computing topics. I did note that this time you aren't trying the "That source is unreliable" angle. I guess since you can't claim this source to be unreliable, you'll instead try to claim it is insignificant. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your claim that I always portray coverage of the Natami in bad light suggests that you never bothered to actually scrutinize the sources I examined to determine whether my assessments of them were accurate. One editor (one that is actually sympathetic to Natami, I should add) has examined my assessments of the sources in question and has found no issue with my assessments . In contrast, your claim that ten sentences of coverage and a photo qualifies as significant coverage has been questioned by myself and another editor . It really seems that you portray all coverage of Natami as reliable and/or significant while accusing anyone who dares assess the nature of sources (as they should as editors) of gaming the system. I wonder whether you will consistently argue that ten sentences and a photo qualifies as significant coverage in all AfDs. Rilak (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Rilak, I don't know about others, but I'm not falling for your tactics of suggestion. You also know better than to make false statements such as "you portray all coverage of Natami as reliable and/or significant" while trying to put words in my mouth to discredit me. I've mentioned two reliable sources, both of which you have personally taken issue with, using whatever means you could think of. This article/interview in Amiga Future (imprint & editors information) is reliable. This news article published by nr2.ru is also reliable. (The two paragraphs in the news article might only have "ten sentences", however that does not mean they are extremely short 5 word English sentences, but good try.) P.S. Rilak, nice tactic of using an extremely short reply "Ten sentences is "significant" coverage?"  when attempting to suggest to others that nr2.ru's coverage was "small" or "insignificant" and therefore unimportant or even unreliable. This is however a suggestion 101 tactic :) --Tothwolf (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that I am using such tactics? Rilak (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge into Amiga as the obvious compromise. Deserves a mention, but do not think it has notability that is independent of Amiga, or will ever. Then we can get back to the serious work of making the article more encyclopedic (and avoid and future speculation etc.). W Nowicki (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I continue to think this is the best and most appropriate outcome. Independent notability is disputed, but we have sufficient verifiable information to include in a possible merge. The Amiga article has a full section on clones that would make a fine home. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  23:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, article needs work, but AFD isn't cleanup. I am unconvinced by the arguments that the russian article, the french web magazine, and Amiga Future are not reliable sources, and I think those provide sufficient coverage to establish general notability. That some sources focus only on Amiga related issues is of no more import than it is that Tennis Magazine focuses on Tennis related issues and would thus be unacceptable as a source for, say, a particular kind of tennis racket. I am also unconvinced that the mere fact that a magazine's publisher may have an indirect fiscal interest in the article's subject makes that magazine an unreliable source. If the Natami folks owned the magazine, such reasoning would apply. In the interest of disclosure I came over from RSN. As an aside, I would ask that editors confine their comments to the issues at hand and refrain from personal characterizations. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of your arguments are against inaccurate interpretations of the opposing arguments. Regarding the Russian article, it has not been described as unreliable. Instead, the issue is that it is too short, failing WP:N's requirement that the coverage be significant. Secondly, why is the French fanzine reliable when the fanzine describes itself as a self-published magazine written voluntarily by fans? How does a publication written voluntarily by fans, who may or may not have journalistic training, operating in an informal organization on a voluntary basis meet WP:RS's requirement that for a publication to be considered reliable, there must be an indication that the publication has processes that go towards the goal of reliability? Lastly, the portrayal that the possible financial link between ACP & TCP is "indirect" is vague and inaccurate. Indirect relative to what? The link is as direct as a retailer paying a publisher to publish a magazine about the products the retailer sells. Rilak (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I simply disagree that the russian article's coverage is insignificant. The french source bills itself as a magazine, and it looks like the usual small online magazine for a restricted technical topic, apparently they have a staff and they claim to edit/review the online articles. You claim above that Versalia is a "sponsor" of Amiga Future, but it appears to me that they are an advertiser, if you look closely at, you can see their ad prominently displayed under the word "Advertising". Amiga Future appears to be owned by APC&TCP, which does sell software, posters, and accessories, but I do not believe they sell hardware, and I do not see the Natami for sale on their web site, so they appear to be independent of the Natami project. Amiga Future also appears to have a pretty extensive editing staff, so I think that source is clearly reliable. I have read through all of this twice now, and I just disagree with you. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been poking around, and I'm comfortable using this polish interview as a source. It's not a news source, but rather a review web site, but appears to be pretty well done with a good number of editors on board. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, there are no independent reliable sources. Typically, not-yet-completed projects do not get reviews and are not notable at least until they are released. Sometime they are never released and why should we have an article about a piece of copycat technology that isn't even finished yet. Once it is finished and released, then it can get independent reviews which may satisfy the general notability guideline, but the subject does not meet that guideline now. Yworo (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * since when is the allegedly copycat nature of something relevant to notability ? Our role is not to judge the originality or quality of products, any more than the correctness of the views of politicians, just their importance as determined by the sources covering them.     DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, the project is existent and it has some reliable independent coverage. I don't understand arguments that specialized magazines doesn't count as reliable, otherwise ~500.000 article should be deleted out of this reason. The world need specialization and thus even in the IT world gets more and more in more splits. The longer the project will last, the more coverage will get into the article. mabdul 23:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been editors who have argued that specialized sources are not indicative of notability, but there are also arguments that much of the specialized sources are not as reliable as have been portrayed. The latter arguments are separate from the former; discrediting the former does not do the same to the latter. Rilak (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the sources are sufficient RSs for the topic (and are quite normal for good quality computer related articles in wikipedia.). The opposition seems to be based on the weird concept that specialized sources do not prove the notability of specialized topics. Where one expects specialized topics to be written about is in sources on the subject. The notability of topics in Macintosh/Amiga/IBM software and hardware is proven by significant coverage in reliable publications devoted to Macintosh/Amiga/IBM software and hardware, not coverage in publications devoted to other subjects--which if anything, are in general less, not more reliable. This is the same in all subject fields. There are publications devoted to specific sports--substantial articles in them prove the notability  of people active in those sports. There are magazines cover specific literary authors: articles in Shakespeare Quarterly prove the notability of topics related to Shakespeare.  That nobody would buy a Macintosh/Amiga/IBM publication if there were no such products is even less relevant to the reliability of those magazines; nobody would buy Car and Driver if there were no automodbiles, nobody would buy the WSJ if there were no financial sector in the economy, but that does not make either of them unreliable for the field they cover. I am truly astounded at   this line of argument: perhaps there  is animus against this particular product on the part of one or more editors involved in the general subject field, but I think it more likely that it represents  a mote general destructive intent to find spurious reasons for deleting as many articles as possible, rather than following policy and attempting to save as many as possible.     DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * comment, Can't tell if serious. References appear to be a pile of links to web forums and blog posts and said subject is a device that doesn't actually exist. I think a lot of well intentioned people forget that this is an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koft (talk • contribs) 03:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Koft: Existent!, Oh, please get a life. You can't claim as non existent a product that has been seen in various Amiga Exhibits presented to public. There are also various youtube videos in which Natami is presented internationally to anyone linked to the web and it was shown running real Amiga Software (one example for all: here at this link showing LX prototype). From news I read online, there are at least two Natami MX board (MX is definitive model that will be sold on the market) that were been already developed and assembled; First one: in february 2011, and Second one in may 2011. Also developers of Natami are so funny that they made a public "five days running test" of the MX motherboard, as the official tester was the little daughter of one of the developers (read about the 5 days full testing here), At least Natami developers have sense of humor and are capable to make a laugh right about themselves and their motherboard. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC).
 * users personal lives are not relevant to this discussion The product is not finished, hence it doesn't exist. Nobody can buy natami, because its in prototype stage and subsequently this is why there is a severe lack of references about it, nobody can actually review it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koft (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (P.S.: I found yet another interview with a developer of Natami here on reviewmylife site. Is that a technology news site? Seems to me professional, judging from its aspect, but I found no info about it.)--Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a personal blog, see this, thus not RS unless the author is considered an acknowledged expert on the topic at hand. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a reliable source. He does claim that the site is more like a static website and that he is just using WordPress for content management, so while maybe not a "blog" in the traditional sense, it is still a personal website. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * DGG, I have to say that I am a bit offended because I have been lumped in with other editors who have been arguing that specialized sources cannot evidence notability. I have never voiced such an opinion. My argument for deletion rests on other reasons, reasons which you have ignored in your generalization. The entire crux of your keep rationale rests on the ability of specialized to evidence notability, but that fails to address my nomination rationale and the ample evidence showing that much of the coverage is not what the editors favoring keep have portrayed it to be. Rilak (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly notable as in WP:N, since the number and content of the mentioned sources give a clear impression of a remarkable international relevance in IT and not being a small 1 person project. Also refer to For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. This guideline seems to have missed entirely on the first AfD. It is disturbing to see, that it appears one user is very obsessed with deletion and discrediting all generally accepted seconard sources, using good rhetoric but failing substantial prove or not answering at all, when he gets caught. Also refer to WP:SPS are *largely* not acceptable. This guideline is surely not a kill criteria for ignoring entirely all available infos from blogs that are existing supplementary to the already mentioned source matching WP criteria as as a second source. Met adm (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Met adm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep per Raffaele Megabyte. Island Monkey talk the talk 17:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep We're doing this again? Bah.  The only thing that has changed, is more sources have been found.  As I said last time: A print magazine dedicated to Amiga topics gives it ample coverage. The magazine owners aren't trying to promote a product that they sell, but instead reviewing something of interest to its readers, the Amiga community. Those who seem knowledgeable about this subject, seem to believe the article is notable.   D r e a m Focus  21:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We're doing it again because the last AfD, which ended in a conclusion to delete, was overturned because the admin who closed it decided to give some keep voters a second day in court. I don't know that "bah" is the right reaction, given your stance on the article :P. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  01:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is more to it than that. I was just the first editor to bring it up on the closing admin's talk page, per the recommended process for DRV. Given the sources, had it gone to DRV (and apparently I wasn't the only one considering it), it most likely would have been overturned to either no consensus or an outright keep. This is why it was relisted here. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Is there any hope of consensus towards a merge? That Natami has sufficient verifiable information to warrant a paragraph (or few) at a fairly obvious destination seems easy to justify. The only dispute over the current sourcing is whether it's strong enough to confer notability sufficient for a separate article. I am absolutely opposed to the outright removal of Natami content from Wikipedia, I just remain unconvinced that it warrants its own article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  01:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.