Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami
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
— User:Ginsengbomb, 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)