Deletion of Natami (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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#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. 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RELIABLE||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:RELIABLE)

Comment: 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.  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: clearly notable as in , 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  ''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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SPS)

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 Amiga#Amiga_hardware_clones|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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: complies with . I dont see why it was deleted in its first AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: NatAmi is recognizable even by computer hardware stores and therefore complies with  - http://www.vesalia.de/?V02b0f13565f431577595d56520a514e01101f09544147520501450b0a1e31115c79633a223c6373744e03263d2e603c684d0f107e266c6e0a0b693478216a7d230e0b4c55585855641f7b4f445f4b58574e77545a144b4a0f3d7e585a47131e54324643516031314b0f452e716c73704c7b607c7d36707 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

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. (I would also question why this article was renominated without first going through 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:DRV)