 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 June 27. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Wait, before you lynch me - read below.
I've prepared a summary of rationales presented below, discounting obviously-canvassed opinions and single-purpose accounts. I've also discounted improper rationale such as 'content is interesting' and 'I've decided to assert that this is(n't) notable, but I'm not going to share any further reasoning with you, closing admin.'
Keep:
- Subject is notable within a narrow field - naturally, widespread independent sourcing will be hard to find, but this is not necessary
- Article needs work, but has sufficient reliable coverage to maintain verifiability and notability
Delete:
- Subject is only notable within a narrow field - due to the lack of widespread independent sourcing, article is not viable
- Sources with ties to the subject cannot be used as primaries
This is an incredibly-compounded version of the dozens of arguments I just spent twenty minutes reading through. Again, people saying "it is/isn't notable/interesting" and "first AFD was wrong/right" - while your participation is appreciated, I don't get much from your assertion, as I am still working on the technology necessary to read your mind.
While it comes pretty close, consensus leans towards delete - unfortunately, while Natami clearly has its supporters, stronger sources are needed to support a stand-alone article. I agree that a merge would be the best idea - if anyone would like, I can pull up a copy of the article for inclusion in the main Amiga article.
I understand this decisions isn't going to be popular with some people (heck, any close is guaranteed to disappoint half of you), but please understand that this is an unbiased close. I'm only going off consensus and policy.
I'd like to commend everyone for (mostly) keeping a cool head. If there are any concerns regarding my close that I haven't addressed, click on my signature to tell me. Cheers, m.o.p 04:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]