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. Despite the overabundance of keep !votes, I've had to carefully read this AfD several times and review each editor. Many editors have arrived here due to a "Call for help". Reading the keeps, it appears many use the WP:ILIKEIT, WP:GHITS, or WP:CRYSTALBALL type rationale. The sources provided by the keeps contain blogs, forums, primary sources, or minor self-published Amiga "news" sites. The delete rationale has been supported by policy. The article fails WP:GNG. Specifically, there are no reliable sources that are independant of the subject. I would like to remind editors not to try to WP:CANVASS support from off-wiki and to support their rationale with policy. v/r - TP 23:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natami[edit]

Natami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(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]

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]
Ok fair enough regarding that ref. I've now added the quote with Dave Haynie mentioned below, I might add yet more if good refs emerges. --Marko75 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A forum discussion is not WP:RS and therefore has no weight when it comes to notability. It is irrelevant that Dave Haynie is claimed to have participated in the forum discussion. Rilak (talk)
Amiga fansites and other venues already have information about the Natami. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where the standard for inclusion is whether the topic is encyclopedic and whether it is notable or not. Arguing that the article should be kept so that people can find information about it is not an argument against the reason the article is here at AfD, which is Natami's lack of WP:N. Rilak (talk) 06:03, 13 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]
The reliability of Amiga Future is questionable. Who publishes it? Why does it appear to not have an ISSN? Why does it not appear in the catalogs of major libraries? Regarding notability, it is determined by the amount of coverage a subject receives in reliable and independent secondary sources. It is irrelevant whether you consider it to be notable. The fact that there are articles on Wikipedia at present that are similar to Natami is also irrelevant, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rilak (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're grasping at straws. The website has an impressum as required by German law. This is accessible on every page of the site in the sidebar. Here it is: [7]. It lists the company and tax identification numbers of the publisher, as well as the people involved in the creation of the magazine. It is not in the catalogs of major libraries because it is a small specialist computer magazine - I've known a ton of niche magazines that are definitive for their niches that are still not carried by the vast majority of major libraries. An ISSN is no indication of reliability, but in this case an indication of the niche nature of it - an ISSN would not confer them any advantages. You keep moving the goalposts, and seem curiously passionate about getting rid of this article. Anyway, here is another link for you to complain about: [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to be rude. I was requesting additional information about the magazine for the benefit of everyone in this discussion; information that could support the claim that Amiga Future is a reliable source just as easily as it could support the claim that it is not. Surely you don't think that just because it is a magazine that it therefore must meet WP:RS? I am being through and I think that it's relevant to the discussion.
Now, you say that having an ISSN is no indication of reliability. You're right. But you mistakenly assume that I thought so. An ISSN infers no such thing; every junk magazine has an ISSN, or at least so in my region. I also observe that plenty of other magazines from all over the world have ISSNs. So if the very worst of magazines have an ISSN, and one does not, is it not reasonable to question its reliability?
Regarding the book in the ACM Digital Library, it is most interesting. ACM DL says the full title is: Amiga: History of the Amiga, Amiga models and variants, AmigaOS 4, Emulation on the Amiga, Amiga software, Amiga games, Aminet, AROS Research Operating ... Hold-And-Modify, Minimig, MorphOS, Natami.[9] What is unusual about it? It's a bit long for a book title is it not? Let's look a bit deeper. Its ISBNs are 6130264240 and 9786130264246. Now what do we get when we search Google Books for these ISBNs? This is what we get. Notice that it says that the book is published by VDM Publishing House Ltd.? What is VDM Publishing? It is a vanity press. It has no editorial review, no peer review, and worse, it is a republisher of Wikipedia content. The question is now, is the said book in question just copied Wikipedia articles? Let's look at the evidence: Look at the previous link, it has a description of what that book is about. Now look at [10], the last revision of the Amiga article of 2009, which is the year the book in question was published. Notice any similarities between the lede the article and the book's description? It's just like Wikipedia isn't it? Let's look at what the alleged authors have also written: "Frederic+P+Miller" "Agnes+F+Vandome" "John+McBrewster". These authors have written about a diverse range of subjects, no? A bit suspicious is it not? Could it be that they are not real authors, but creations of VDM Publishing? The answer is yes, and this fact is well known amongst Wikipedians: Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#VDM_Publishing_House. Now the question is, will you portray this as Natami hate? Rilak (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think just anything would qualify. I got a bit exasperated because between this and your other comments, it seemed to me that you were trying very hard to find reasons to delete, and the link to the impressum is in the sidebar of the pages previously linked to. As a long time reader of Amiga Future, it is also annoying to see it's reliability questioned, as while it most definitively is a small niche magazine it's consistently seemed fair and balanced within its subject area to me (though I'm not expecting you to take my word for it).
If the very worst magazines have ISSN's, how does it follows that the lack of one makes it reasonable to question reliability? A quick search shows that's all that is needed in Germany is to fill in a form. Given that this seems to give some illusion of reliability with people like you, despite the fact that you claim that you don't see it as an indicator of reliability, would it not be more reasonable to assume that all the unreliable, questionable magazines would be extra concerned about obtaining one?
No, I won't because that detective work is perfectly reasonable, and good catch. If all your objections were based on stuff like this, I don't think anyone would have any problems with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you consider Deutsche Nationalbibliothek as "major library" [11] :-) --Pavlor (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the German National Library is a major library. Admittedly, my initial searches failed to find it. Thanks for pointing that out. Rilak (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This does not establish notability per WP:ILIKEIT. Rilak (talk) 00:59, 12 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]
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]
Not only this year, but as far back as Micro Mart issue 31 March 26th 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]
  • Comment If Micro Mart has been covering the project regularly (in its print edition, in articles rather than adverts and/or online by its editorial staff rather than its readers) and the coverage has been providing substantive information about Natami (and doing more than simply reproducing Natami press releases), then that may well establish notability - if at least some of the information that Micro Mart has been providing is added to the article and sourced back to Micro Mart. I'm not in a position to do this as I don't have copies of Micro Mart - anyone who does, please edit the article. PWilkinson (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of a product, how remarkable it is, and what its fans think of it are not criteria for meeting WP:N. Rilak (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the issue is WP:N, it is WP:ITSINTERESTING that is not strong enough to justify inclusion. Rilak (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right point. However I can offer other reason for keep. Progress of the Natami project is monitored in global scale: eg. news sites in the Czech Republic [12] [13], Germany [14], Hungary [15], Poland [16] and of course international sites [17], I can also cite magazine Amiga Future (n. 73, May 2011) [18] --Pavlor (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at these sites, it is questionable as to whether they are reliable sources or not. What is a "news site"? Is it any site that offers news? If it is, then yes, these are news sites, just like unreliable self-published sources such as blogs. But if "news site" means Ars Technica, CNet News, or the site of a newspaper or a news magazine, then these sites are not news sites. Regarding amigaportal.cz, the "About This Site" page claims that the site was created by fans. Regarding powerpc.lukysoft.cz, it's an AmigaOS user group. Regarding amiga-news.de, it appears to says nothing about itself. Regarding retrocomputer.tux.hu, it looks like a blog. Regarding ppa.pl, its "About Us" page claims that it is a portal serving Amiga users, and that it publishes what appears to be a fanzine (since its staff does not appear to publish it professionally; as in paid as a job). Regarding amigaworld.net, [19] says it is a community portal. None of these sites look like reliable sources. Amiga Future is the only actual magazine, but its reliability is still unknown. Rilak (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the pile-on from two individuals below attacking and attempting to divert attention away from my own comments about Amiga Future, it is a published magazine with an editorial staff, which makes it a clear reliable source. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why there are so many results is that the first page of results always shows an inflated number of results. To get the true number, the easiest way is to set Google to return 100 results per page, redo the search, and click on page ten. Note this omits duplicates. Rilak (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Tag me as SPA. The fact that I don't have a wikipedia account shouldn't autmatically qualify me as SPA. I made a lot of contributions in the past, and will do so in the future, without registration. For this very AfD debate I just questioned the numbers from the the topic starter and posted the results [20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.101.148 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you coming here on an anon IP address, for which no other edits have ever been recorded, is precisely the definition of SPA ... the more so in that in our experience, the odds that an anon IP just happens to stumble across an AfD discussion as its very first edit are astonishingly low. That being said, someone heretofore familiar with Wikipedia - however anonymously - would know that Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not count as "notable", for the sake of retaining articles, mere Google hits.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  08:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "fanboys" already mentioned regular coverage in Micro Mart Magazine, a popular UK computer magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.240.137 (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Odd, then, that a search for "Natami" on Micro Mart Magazine's website turns up zero hits. [24] For a magazine which is described as the only one in the UK still reporting on the Amiga, that's rather a startling result, don't you think?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you're really so badly versed in how magazines operate to automatically assume that every product mentioned or described in print in a magazine will automatically show up on their web site, maybe you ought to stay out of the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is an excellent way for Wikipedia to become a total dinosaur, when you try to ignore primary sources and interviews with the people involved in a project in an environment where more and more information is going online-only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Micro Mart Magazine. I should point out that magazines do not give out the entire content on their website. That is why you haven't gotten a hit searching it. If you really, really want to see proof, contact Sven Harvey, the writer of the Amiga Mart column. I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige. 82.42.35.60 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I would not count on Micro Mart column. It covers every possible (and impossible) event in Amiga land. Could you please provide issue and page number and maybe some quote from his Micro Mart Magazine column? Or is it just hearsay? Xorxos (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A merge may constitute WP:UNDUE. It is trivial for an electronics or a computer engineer to design a clone of a 1980s home computer. With such a low threshold to making an Amiga clone, is every clone worthy of a mention on Wikipedia? I think not. Rilak (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It is trivial for an electronics or a computer engineer to design a clone of a 1980s home computer." What is your source for this statement? If you've ever done this sort of design work you would know that this is not true at all. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FPGA clones are relatively easy compared to full custom design. Rilak (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, only if we are talking about a CPU implementation. An entire board design isn't a FPGA-based CPU. Again, what is your source? This interview makes it pretty clear that a lot of developer time has gone into this project. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not just a CPU. But it is the CPU that is the most complex part of a design. And so what if lots of time went into it? What has the amount of effort got to do with anything? Are you are arguing that just because someone has spent lots of effort and time doing something, then that person, their activity, or thing should be rewarded with a mention in Wikipedia? Rilak (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Based on your statements so far, you've clearly not done this sort of design work.

"What has the amount of effort got to do with anything?" The amount of effort is being discussed here because you attempted to downplay the amount of development time which has apparently gone into this particular project.

"Are you are arguing that just because someone has spent lots of effort and time doing something, then that person, their activity, or thing should be rewarded with a mention in Wikipedia?" Oh you should know better than to try to put words in my mouth in an attempt to discredit me... The amount of interest people outside of Wikipedia seem to have in this project is important. It shows that this project is important to the larger Amiga community and is worth covering in a halfway decent fashion here on Wikipedia. I suspect we will eventually begin to see coverage given to this project in computer books (the publication process is very slow) such as what happened with a particular Commodore 64 reimplementation. On a related note, can you name another computer platform as old as the Amiga which still has the large userbase that the Amiga has? --Tothwolf (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From your impassioned views on the worthiness of the Natami (none of which are relevant to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines), I see what you did. You've taken my statement completely out of context and misconstrued it into "Rilak has something against the Natami". This is what I said: "A merge may constitute WP:UNDUE. It is trivial for an electronics or a computer engineer to design a clone of a 1980s home computer. With such a low threshold to making an Amiga clone, is every clone worthy of a mention on Wikipedia? I think not."[32] Does the first sentence say that a merge is not appropriate? No, it says that it might not be appropriate. Regarding the second sentence, "home computer" != Natami. Regarding the third sentence, "Amiga clone" != Natami. Also in the third sentence, I asked whether every clone deserved a mention in Wikipedia, and I expressed my opinion that not every clone does, which does mean that Natami is necessarily one of those clones. So essentially, I was pushing for more consideration into the appropriateness of merging in the face of the often-stated, but sometimes poorly considered merge option. Rilak (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"From your impassioned views on the worthiness of the Natami [...]" Sorry, but no, I'm not currently that interested in this subject, so your accusations are misplaced. Quite frankly, I'm actually much more interested in why you seem to dislike this subject so much. I find your view that NatAmi (apparently, the article is misnamed) is undue weight and should not have any sort of coverage here on Wikipedia at all quite curious. Your view seems to be quite flawed given the apparent popularity of this project within the Amiga community.

As for your view of "It is trivial for an electronics or a computer engineer to design a clone of a 1980s home computer." ...you still keep dodging and refusing provide a source for your statement. This leads to the natural conclusion that you simply made it up.

Egads mate, put on some clothes! --Tothwolf (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga is notable, Natami is an Amiga clone, therefore Natami is notable? No, absolutely not, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Rilak (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:RS lately? No forum post is ever reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Sorry. The expert exception only applies to sites published and maintained by the expert, such as their own blog. Material in forums and blogs which do not belong to the expert are still not considered reliable. Yworo (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Usenet posts, forum posts, emails from email lists, etc from experts in their field may be used as a reliable source here on Wikipedia (WP:SPS). You already know this because we've done this with quotes from Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, Larry Wall, and many many others. Regardless, this review in Amiga Future mentioned above is reliable [35] (despite the novel use of phpBB for content aggregation). --Tothwolf (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, they have to be self-published, i.e. the expert must be the publisher as well as the author of the content. That's implicit in the concept of "self-published sources". As for Linus Torvalds, etc., I have never ever used email, forums, or any other such unreliable sources, though perhaps you have. Nearly everything important can be found in reliable sources. I disagree with the use of such sources on Linux and related articles. Any use of such sources should be replaced with reliable sources. However, choosing ones battles is an important concept and I simply haven't chosen to pursue correcting this issue on articles for which the subject is obviously notable. This subject, on the other hand, simply does not have enough mainstream reliable sources to establish notability. One interview in Amiga Future is IMO not adequate to meet even the general notability guideline. "Multiple sources are generally expected." Yworo (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're misquoting WP:SPS, Tothwolf. "[S]self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Such sources are only acceptable under the condition Yworo cites, and the "experts" must themselves be the subject of multiple, third-party reliable sources. That being said, unless you're suggesting that these particular bloggers qualify - and if so, kindly supply the evidence that they do - this is nothing but a smokescreen.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. Rilak (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About those who consider Natami an hobby project. Yes! it is an hobby project, just as like Altair 8800 and Apple I. I added in the articles references to modern homebrew computing systems and inscribing Natami in the modern phenomenon of homebrew computing: See also Minimig that was born from an hobby project and then hit the market thanks to italian hardware developer ACube who produces also Sam440ep PowerPC motherboad on which runs AmigaOS (Minimig link at Acube). See also C-One, created as homebrew by Jeri Ellsworth which then also hit the market. See also Arduino multipurpose microcontroller, see also Pandora Open Source gamebox console. these all (included Natami) are a demonstration that the phenomenon of hobby computing is still alive and vital, and deserve an attention by Wikipedia as it is very interesting topic and capable of further growth of relevance and interest...

Because remember: Don't underestimate modern hobby projects computing. It is hobby projects computing that historically created the market of microcomputers and then lead the series of phenomena in computer market in the '80 (new processors, new architectures, new hardware and software houses, etc., etc., etc.,) that started the rampage in home computing. Computers spreaded first amongst amateurs thanks to hobby projects, and then computers was made available to anyone on this planet. It is also thanks to hobby projects and homebrew computers that was realized the techonological and social revolution that bring nowadays the presence of computers in almost any home in the nations of first and second world. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Raffa, you're not helping here. Instead you made it worse with your useless rant (Yet you made it at least look a bit better) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.119.50 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well 87.79.119.50. I apologize. It is due to my poor english. As a native italian speaker, my statements could seem redundant, as I try to better explain some concepts. Unfortunately I got no sense of brevity. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edits that are claimed to conclusively invalidate the premise of the nomination mostly consists of what looks like original research, personal reflection, and advocacy which just makes the article worse. The only parts of those edits relevant to this discussion is the addition of two references, http://obligement.free.fr/articles/natami_nouvel_amiga_classic.php and http://www.appuntidigitali.it/9907/native-amiga-natami-il-vero-erede-dellamiga/. The former is a webzine, and the claim that it is a reliable source is questionable since it does not appear to be produced by a paid professional staff and published by a media company, but voluntarily by fans: http://obligement.free.fr/apropos.php. The latter is a blog. The fact that it is allegedly written by computer engineers and scientists is irrelevant. The WP:SPS section of WP:V makes it pretty clear that blogs are acceptable sources only in exceptional circumstances. The state of being a computer engineer or scientist does not make one an established authority on computer engineering or science, which is the reason why there are junior positions and senior positions in employment. Additionally, have the authors of the blog written about Amiga in reliable sources? It does not appear they have. Rilak (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bitplane Magazine Italia @ Tothwolf, This is very interesting as Amigafuture is a well known printed Amiga Magazine, edited in Germany in English language. I will add this reference in the article about Natami. Must check if also Bitplane magazine Italia had some articles about the motherboard. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appunti Digitali @Rilak: the fact that Appunti Digitali site is orgaized as a collective blog, in which various people contribute to the articles. is a precise editor publishing style choice, not a diminishing, as it is organized with the style of an open professional social site. Professional work of Mr. Cesare di Mauro, (who wrote the article about Natami on Appunti Digitali) as a skilled software developer and Amiga expert was even quoted by Ars Technica that is a well known site on the web. P.S.: He is not only a software developer, and actually works in mobile telephony software development, but he got also a degree in Computer Science at University of Catania, Italy. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How skilled the blog's contributors are, and whatever the alleged reason is for the blog being a blog, is irrelevant as far as policies and guidelines are concerned. Regarding the Ars Technica article, it is misleading to describing it as quoting Cesare di Mauro when it is actually describing some of his work as a typical example of Amiga game development practices. A more important question is how does this satisfy the requirement that in order for a SPS to be deemed reliable, the author of the source must have published? It does not. Rilak (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What could be more acceptable source than international magazine with years of tradition, now even printed in two language editions?--Pavlor (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being an international magazine (being available internationally, not in region-specific editions is what I presume is meant), having been published for many years, and being available in multiple languages are not necessarily indicators that it is suitable for indicating notability. I don't think this somehow means that the concerns about the publisher are irrelevant. Rilak (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of a Newspaper @Rilak; So then, from your statement you seem to say that any newspaper or magazine that is owned by a finance tycoon or by a consortium of shareholders, or (in Amiga Future example), a magazine that is sponsored by a computer reseller is partisan or higly unreliable. Ridicolous.
Examples in real world stated that only in some rare cases newspapers owned by some private are factious. The vaste majority have indipendent point of view from their owners and shareholders.
If you doubt of Amiga Future, then you have two opportunities. 1) Conduct a mini-survey by reading the articles they published online, to check if yous spot any partisan point of view about Amiga, Amiga products and manufactures, or if they are constructive critics about Amiga in their articles and reviews. 2) If you want, you can also buy an entire annual publishing (11 issues) and conduct an investigation all by yourself by browsing the entire magazines and realize what is Amiga Future editorial line of action. As an Amiga owner since 1989 I check almost all Amiga magazines ever existed and I found almost always genuine indipendent positions about Amiga manufacturers and software houses, and critic point of view about products they reviewed, and mainly in german and english amiga computing magazines. Infacts they have a great reputation of being very objective. Be free to check by yourself any online PDF collections of Amiga Magazines. Sincerely, --151.30.120.221 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that my comment touched upon the ownership of Amiga Future or that Amiga Future is, in your words, "...a magazine that is sponsored by a computer reseller..." Now that you mention it, it is interesting to consider whether a magazine sponsored by a computer reseller meets the five criteria of WP:N, especially the fourth criteria:

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.

Rilak (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So then in your words are to exclude a very great number of testimonies of the past, just because these infos (and other news that were difficult to find elsewhere) could be find only on computer magazines of the '80 that were sponsored by Atari or Apple or Commodore??? Indipendency of sources is simple to verify. As I adviced you, just click the mouse and read the articles of Amiga Future present online, and decide by yourself and upon your personal judgement if they meet the indipendency criteria or not. Testing reliability of historic sources is a scientific method, exclude the sources by making innuendo and spreading FUD about their indipendence or insinuating these sources are not reliabile is not a scientific method! Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the initial part of your comment. You said,

"So then in your words are to exclude a very great number of testimonies of the past, just because these infos (and other news that were difficult to find elsewhere) could be find only on computer magazines of the '80 that were sponsored by Atari or Apple or Commodore???"

What testimonies "of the past" am I alleged to have ignored? What are these testimonies to? Judging from the subject of this AfD and the comment you are replying to, I guess it has to be either Natami or Amiga Future. But then you alleged that I have ignored these testimonies since they can only be found in computer magazines of the 1980s sponsored by Atari, Apple, and Commodore. (What has Atari and Apple have to do with this AfD?!) It therefore cannot be testimonies to Natami or Amiga Future since no sources presented in this AfD are from the 1980s, and since both Natami and Amiga Future are not of the 1980s. Regarding Natami, it appears development began in the late 1990s. Regarding Amiga Future, according to the German National Library, it was first published in 1998. So what testimonies are you referring to? What is their relevance to this AfD if they are separated from Natami by at least a decade?
Regarding the rest of your comment, I find your repeated "advising" me to be moot. When you stated (I believe the IP is you since you refer to the edit by it as yours) that Amiga Future is published by a computer reseller (presumably APC & TCP, since you were responding to my "examination" of it), you effectively stated that Amiga Future is not independent from the Amiga platform since its publisher has a business in selling Amiga accessories/hardware/games. See WP:INDEPENDENT.
Lastly, ignoring your unexplained views that my criticism of the magazine is "innuendo" and "FUD"; your view that it is also "unscientific" baffles. How is the scientific method relevant? Perhaps you meant source evaluation. Rilak (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More