Deletion of Natami

Comment: Despite the tidal wave of SPAs (which, of course, are coming here because people are urging them on an Amiga bulletin board in multiple topics to do so http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=58103 http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=58104), this AfD can only be decided on Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  That a handful of remaining Amiga fanboys are excited about this is all very well and good, but in order to sustain a Wikipedia article, this must be covered in "significant detail" in |reliable, independent, third-party sources.  Could the fanboys cite any articles in mainstream media, newspapers, print magazines or coverage on TV or radio news programs?  I wouldn't hold my breath.  There is only '''one''' Google News hit in English http://www.osnews.com/thread?355351, a blog post which gives this project a passing mention alone
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I think rejecting the Amiga Future source as one that is "not independent" is a bit of a shaky argument. The independent requirement, in my opinion, is designed to reject sources that are ''primary''. In this case, if Amiga Future were literally published -- or the article written -- by the makers of Natami, that would be a clear problem. But the fact that it's devoted to the Amiga platform, and that it's publisher is in the business of selling Amiga materials, does not make it a clear cut case of not being independent. Certainly, the publishers of Amiga Future might stand to have some financial gain in the resurgence of the Amiga platform, but it seems to me to be a sufficiently indirect connection that it's not much of a valid concern. They're not ''selling'' Natami. It's certainly not a primary source.As such, I think Amiga Future should be accepted as a potentially reliable source, and its coverage of Natami is certainly significant. That said, I continue to fall on the side of deletion. In lieu of additional coverage from a pub like the frequently mentioned Micro Mart, I don't see evidence of coverage in ''multiple'' reliable sources. Given that Amiga Future is not a ''slam dunk'' reliable source -- and I think one could argue that it is so limited in scope as to be similar to local coverage of a local government official, or similar -- I'd really like to see additional sourcing to be convinced that this article clears . Perhaps my "delete" vote could be qualified as "weak," in this case, but it remains delete, despite my not being convinced that Amiga Future is a non-independent source
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: As for sources mentioned above, http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=631463&postcount=56 this post by Dave Haynie ''is'' reliable and may be quoted in the article (just as we do with other experts in their field). http://www.reviewmylife.co.uk/blog/2011/03/23/natami-native-amiga-interview/ This review with one of the developers is also reliable ''for facts about NatAmi''.The issue here isn't that we don't have any |reliable sources for the purposes of |verifiability. The sole issue seems to be that NatAmi has not ''yet'' been covered in Amiga-related ''books'' which are indexed by Google Books (which tends to lead to FUTON bias). That said, given the Amiga community's interest in NatAmi, it certainly deserves ''some form'' of decent coverage here on Wikipedia, be it a standalone article ''or'' merged as part of Amiga#Amiga hardware clones (or elsewhere).The main question which comes to mind for me at least (and should be the question others ask as well), is how would the deletion of verifiable information which is integral to our coverage of Amiga help improve Wikipedia? In this ''specific'' case, I would be tempted to cite our Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|ignore all rules policy in response to the Wikipedia:Notability|notability guideline argument because it is apparent that NatAmi ''is'' important to the coverage of Amiga and ''will'' eventually be covered in published works
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: and merge any |verifiable content to the Amiga#Amiga hardware clones|Amiga article's hardware clones section. Total lack of |reliable sources, and while I, as a geek, have considerable sympathy for the outpouring of -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 the |relevant 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RELIABLE||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:RELIABLE)

Comment: A magazine called ''Amiga Future'' has been mentioned a couple of times as an example of a |reliable source. It is argued that the magazine is a reliable source because it is well-known in the Amiga community and because it is published in print (and online). According to the magazine's impressum, it is published by APC & TCP.http://www.amigafuture.de/portal.php?page=12 Looking up this company on Google has led me to http://www.apc-tcp.de/. It is difficult to determine what this company is (I was unable to find any clear statement as to what the company is). From http://www.apc-tcp.de/history.php, http://www.apc-tcp.de/vertrieb.php, and http://www.apc-tcp.de/support.php, it appears it was founded as a Amiga club, becoming a publisher in Amiga games software, a manufacturer of Amiga accessories, and then the publisher of ''Amiga Future''. As a result, APC & TCP is not the typical kind of company that I would expect to be the publisher of literature deemed to be reliable sources.  does not state whether publications published in these circumstances are examples of a typical reliable source or not. In my view, the claim that ''Amiga Future'' is a reliable source is questionable, a view that I have held since its first mention in this AfD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: 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 ly detailed 'Specifications' section
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)