Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:08, 12 June 2011

Natami

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. Rilak (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this article is notable enough, only that it is missing a few 3rd-party references. I just added info about the MX boards + a reference, I might add more references later on. --Marko75 (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference added is a forum discussion. It is not a reliable source per WP:RS and therefore is not evidence of notability. Rilak (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While there might not be that much references, since product is not done yet, and ommunity talking about natami is small, it definetily is notable enough. Many Amigans have said in Forums that this is only new Amiga they are intrested in. Also Dave Haynie (one of the original Commodore techie guys behind some of the original Amigas) have also said that from current new amigas (Pegasos, X1000, Sam, Natami), Natami is only one having true Amiga spirit in it, and in his opinion is most interesting of them all. There are lots of talk among Amigans on Amiga forums about Natami, also Amiga Future (print Amiga magazine) have had several times space for Natami news and stuff. Although notable only for a small group (at max 10s of thousands), it definetily is notable. --Bugala (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the subject has little coverage because it is not yet available is questionable given the fact the article is quite detailed. That means the information is out there, but remains unnoticed by reliable publications, suggesting the lack of notability. Regarding what Amiga fans are saying in forums, it is irrelevant to the question of notability, since it is not coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. What David Haynie is alleged to have said about Natami is irrelevant, unless it can be verified. The coverage in Amiga Future could evidence notability, but unless the necessary details are provided so that other editors can assess the coverage, the statement that there is coverage is just an assertion. Rilak (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is some of the coverage from Amiga Future [1]. The project has also had extensive news and article coverage on Amiga sites and webmags such as PPA.pl, Amiga-Impact, Obligement, Safir, Amiga.org, Amigaworld and several other sites. I can dig up further links if you require it. I would judge the notability of the Natami as equal to several other FPGA console or home computer clones having Wikipedia articles, such as FireBee/Atari Coldfire Project [2], Minimig [3] or 1chipMSX [4]. See also the main Wikipedia category page for these types of projects: [5]. Most of of your criticism (sole sources are primary sources or forum posts/blog posts) also apply to many of these pages, but I do not think that is reason enough for marking them for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.240.137 (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, it's one of millions of electronics projects that hasn't even been completed. Wikipedia is not a place for Amiga (or any other kind of) evangelism. Koft (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It isn't even in manufacture and has demonstrated no notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article does need some work the subject I think it's notable. Zac67 (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not establish notability per WP:ILIKEIT. Rilak (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" Keep its available to developers now and consumers by the end of the year of 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.41.169 (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The availability of the product is irrelevant to its notability. Notability is solely dependent of the amount of coverage a subject has received in independent, reliable secondary sources per WP:N. An unreleased product can be notable and a released product not notable. It could be argued that if a product is likely to become notable when released, since more information will be available, then the benefit of the doubt should be given, but this is not the case since the article is already detailed. The information is all out there, but no publication has deemed it worthy of covering. Rilak (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not complete, but it's approximately as far along as the X1000, which nobody seems to be contesting the notability of. Wikipedia might not be "a place for Amiga evangelism," but this article is not at all evangelistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commodorejohn (talk • contribs) 00:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that nobody is contesting the notability of the X1000, a similar product, is irrelevant to this discussion. The notability of Natami (or the lack of) exists independently of the X1000. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rilak (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's notable enough to have been mentioned in micro mart magazine several times in the past year alone. Deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.35.60 (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only this year, but as far back as Micro Mart issue 31 March-April 6 2008. Micro Mart as a major UK computer mag having regular coverage of the project is a strong argument for this article being notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.240.137 (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the Micro Mart issue should be March 26th 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.240.137 (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've not seen such a complete and well thought out fan based extension to the hardware of any computing platform before Natami. Sure, mini versions of some retro machines have been made (The C64 in a joystick for example) and FPGA based remakes, but to extend the hardware in the way the Natami team is doing, that's truly remarkable and beyond a doubt is notable. To do so for the love of it is a demonstration of the sheer devotion the Amiga platform inspires too, notable in the context of the social impact computing platforms can have upon individuals, or is sociology and psychology not covered by wikipedia. A notable enough product for sure, I'm quite frankly shocked that anyone would see it otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.188.201 (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a hobby project outside the scope of Wikipedia. That being said, I'm going to buy one when and if they are available.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.61.58.235 (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Natami is interesting project in both historical and technological sense - it aims to recreate and improve hardware concepts of one of the most popular computers of the 80s/90s. None of the presented arguments are strong enough to justify deletion.--Pavlor (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Retried on google search: "natami" gives 102000 results, "Natami" AND Amiga -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum lists 15700 results, limited to English still 5980. Quite notable for me. The Natami Project itself is one of the first projects trying to enhance the Amiga hardwarewise. One might argue whether Amiga itself is still notable, but since it is, Natami should be too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.101.148 (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 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 [6] [7]), 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? Ravenswing 07:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ===[[Natami]]===
 {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}
+{{afdanons}}
 :{{la|Natami}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 11#{{anchorencode:Natami}}|View log]]</noinclude>)
@@ Line 48: / Line 50: @@
 '''Keep''': Retried on google search: ''"natami"'' gives 102000 results, ''"Natami" AND Amiga -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum'' lists 15700 results, limited to English still 5980. Quite notable for me. The Natami Project itself is one of the first projects trying to enhance the Amiga hardwarewise. One might argue whether Amiga itself is still notable, but since it is, Natami should be too.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.78.101.148|87.78.101.148]] ([[User talk:87.78.101.148|talk]]) 07:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+*'''Delete:''' 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 [[WP:RS|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? [[User:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> &nbsp;Ravenswing&nbsp;</span>''']] 07:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)