Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami (2nd nomination)

Natami

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Natami
• Articles for deletion/Natami (2nd nomination)

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)

Relisting debate per appeals via email and on my talk page. Original AfD had a problem with WP:CANVASS and single purpose accounts. Original AfD rationale is "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." by User:Rilak. I am neutral. v/r - TP 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete : My opinion has not changed on this, for me the very first line of the article says a lot "NatAmi (short for Native Amiga, is an unreleased Amiga clone motherboard)" in that until it actually gets released it is unlikely to get the significant coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate notability. WP is an encyclopaedia, it is not a forum for collating fancruft. The first close was correct, admins who make such calls should be supported, WP:N is clear on this, the article needs coverage from sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. That said I see no bar to re-creation once it has gone on sale and it has received significant coverage independent of the subject has been received. Mtking (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It is quite interesting to see your obsession with deletions, and the comments about your behavior in that regard on your talk page. Perhaps you're not the person one should consider most reliable when it comes to evaluating if a deletion was correct or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Explanation Demanded His Royal Majestic Highness Rilak has issued a decree that Amiga Future magazine is not a reliable source and cannot be quoted in Wikipedia. His "reasoning" excludes every Amiga magazine that ever existed or ever will exist. So my question is: What Amiga magazine is allowed to be quoted on Wikipedia? I want a list. Or is it true as people say, that Wikipedia has no actual rules and applies wildly different standards to each individual article? I demand a list of Amiga magazines that are considered "reliable sources" by wikipedia so that I may make proper edits using only reliable sources. I am neutral. 108.12.101.22 (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)— 108.12.101.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I pass no judgment on if "Amiga Future magazine" is a WP:RS but what is very clear is that it is not sufficiently independent from the project to be used to judge the notability of that subject. Mtking (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it "very clear" that Amiga future is not sufficiently independent from the project to be used to judge notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The blatant personal attack from the IP above pretty much proves that those appealing deletion are not doing so because of a reason, but to have a soapbox. Let's close this farce now. Rilak (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• You have a very interesting idea of what constitutes proof. So you want to close this now on the basis of statements from one person that you consider proof of the motivations of everyone objecting to your point of view, while it at the same time holding those opposing you to a far higher standard. Says it all, really.

• Your blatant personal attack against me pretty much proves that you are not neutral. Do not accuse me of "appealing the deletion" of Natami article. I have never appealed the deletion of anything ever. Unlike you, I am neutral. I don't care if this article gets deleted or not. I simply care if rules are followed. Or if rules even exist in the first place. I notice that you wrote quite a lot of words without answering the question: Which Amiga magazines are reliable sources according to your rules? Which Amiga magazines are allowed to be quoted on wikipedia? We the editors have a right to know. 108.12.101.22 (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)— 108.12.101.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hmmm - I answered your question, now stop badgering others please. Mtking (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• @ Mtking, The article was edited If your personal judgement is to delete the Natami Article due to the fact that the original contributor wrote an unfortunate first line, it seems me quite odd.

This was the original phrase:

"NatAmi (short for ''Native Amiga'', is an unreleased Amiga clone motherboard)"

Then I want to inform you that I edited the phrase of the previous contributor to a more accetable form:

'''NatAmi''' (short for ''Native Amiga''), is the name of an ongoing hardware project,

Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - 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. WP:N 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. Rilak (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep looks like an interesting article to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

May I recommend you have a read of WP:ITSINTERESTING. Mtking (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Why are people asking for its deletion? Natami is 100% notable. There are videos on YouTube, interviews, documentation, benchmarks, and so on. 150.204.51.181 (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)— 150.204.51.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • If that is a rhetorical question, then belittling those in favor of deletion by implying that the topic is so well known that thinking of deleting it justifiably invokes surprise is not a good idea since it does not evidence notability per WP:N (and neither does asserting that the topic is "100% notable"). If that is not a rhetorical question, people are asking that this article be deleted because one of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:N) is that the topic must have received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. In the context of this discussion, videos on YouTube about the Natami are either primary sources (if produced by the creator of the topic, or those affiliated with it) or are not reliable sources (if produced by fans, for example) because it is a self-published source. Regarding interviews, these can be evidence of notability, but only if they are published by a reliable source. The interviews presented so far are not published in reliable sources, but at fansites. Regarding documentation, these are primary sources, and thus fail the requirement of being secondary sources. Regarding benchmarks, these can be evidence for notability, but like interviews, they need to be published in reliable sources. Rilak (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Notable. Covered in Polish Chip magazine http://www.chip.pl/artykuly/trendy/2010/07/amiga-wciaz-smiga?b_start:int=2 , which is a major computer magazine CHIP_(magazine). Covered multiple time on the Polish Amiga Portal [1].GL1zdA (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please check the translation. That is trivial coverage. Mere mentions of NatAmi.--v/r - TP 13:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to check the translation because it's my native language. If you want more, here: IDG is publishing every news about Natami which appeared on PPA:

• http://fider.idg.pl/data.asp?d=24&zr=1462&j=1
• http://fider.idg.pl/data.asp?d=38&zr=1462&j=1
• http://fider.idg.pl/data.asp?d=45&zr=1462&j=1
• http://fider.idg.pl/data.asp?d=52&zr=1462&j=1
• http://fider.idg.pl/data.asp?d=129&zr=1462&j=1

GL1zdA (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • IDG is not publishing news about the Natami, IDG is running an indiscriminate news aggregate that finds news stories about the Natami from the Web. The links are not to IDG websites too. The http://fider.idg.pl/ news aggregate is not even discriminate as to what news it indexes, given that some of the links are about road construction and wrestling competitions. You might as well claim that Google is publishing news stories about the Natami because their web crawlers are indexing Natami news from Amiga fansites, and are providing short summaries of them and links to them. Rilak (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a webcrawler nor a search engine. It's aggregates news in the same way PR Newswire aggregates press releases. You can't publish there arbitrary news, you have to be approved by them. It gathers information from selected sources of the Polish Internet, not only computer related news (that's why you have links about road construction and wrestling competitions).GL1zdA (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to support the claim that IDG is selective in its news aggregation activities? Rilak (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

On the left you have a list of those, whose content appears there. You won't find news outside of this list. 82.210.134.153 (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant "selective" as in "IDG staff putting everything posted by the websites in the list through editorial review before adding links to them" not as in "we only add links to some sites". Rilak (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

These sites where verified by them. You can't just send your rss address and spam them and you get removed if you abuse the service. If IDG trusts PPA I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be a reliable source for w wikipedia article.

• Keep The reliability and origin of the sources used are entirely appropriate for the narrow scope and non-extraordinary claims being made in this article. I'm amused to see that the Amiga fans are still hard at it, I have no idea why they are, but good luck to them. I wouldn't expect to see this covered in Spectrum, I would expect to see it in the Amiga community sources that have done so. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone here is demanding that there be something like a two-page spread in the largest general-audience publication in order for this topic to be considered notable. But whatever coverage is presented here as evidence of notability nevertheless needs to meet WP:N, WP:RS, and any other relevant policy or guideline that WP:N and WP:RS deems relevant. Why should this particular topic be exempt? Rilak (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • No one has written that this topic should be exempt, but you can't say of every source that it's not reliable only because it's not a PhD thesis or article published in NY Times. You can't say that sources which are specializing in a narrow field are not reliable because in *your opinion* they are to narrow.GL1zdA (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
      • No one has written that this topic should be exempt from WP:N and WP:RS? My interpretation of Andy's last sentence is that the standards should be loosened so that "Amiga community sources" can be deemed acceptable because that's the best coverage this topic can muster. It could be said that Andy was a bit ambiguous as what "Amiga community sources" and Spectrum refers to (IEEE Spectrum is the first thing that comes to my mind) is unclear, but given that the sources presented in the first AfD were mostly fansites and blogs, it is reasonable to think that these sources are the "Amiga community sources". Without further comment from Andy, all of this should not be seen as conclusive, but it is certainly reasonable to respond such comments in a manner that leaves the opportunity of clarification open. Lastly, I didn't say that specialized publications are not reliable because their scope is narrow. I would very much like a diff that supports your claim to the contrary. Your portrayal of my reasons for rejecting of the sources in question is either mistaken or a deliberate misrepresentation in an attempt to discredit them. Just so we are clear, I am saying that the specialized publications and coverage presented so far are not reliable because most of them are published by fans in non-professional circumstances, circumstances that won't meet WP:RS, not because they are narrow in scope or audience. Rilak (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• CommentArticle edited and other sources were found to keep Natami article alive. Hello people at Wikipedia. I impoved again the article and inscribed Natami in the phenomenon of Home computer remake and retrogaming with more precision, removing some unwanted words that could make it resemble fancruft speaking.

More: I found an italian historic site that reports all the major remake homebrew efforts of the last years (natami is just cited once, but the presence in that site confirms my assumptions that natami belongs to that home computer remakes criteria. Also it confirms that my preamble into Natami article philosophy section regarding homebrew computers was not just "Original Work" and my personal POV. "Homebrew remakes" are an interesting emerging phenomenon amongst hobbyists.) ComputerHistory.it.

Also I found an interview with one of the Natami Developers on the pages of a Retrocomputing site in Poland Interwiew on Retroage site. This site is not related with Amiga. It a site dedicated to Retrocomputing as a more wide topic, and they spotted the Natami project, so they check the ongoing of the project by interviewing one of the developers.

Also some days ago (june 15) French Amiga Online Magazine Obligement interviewed a young developer who is involved into AmigaOS 4 and perhaps into Natami Project too: Interview on Obligement site. This article makes Obligement leading the "Further reading" section of Natami article being present twice in the list. With respect, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• • P.S.: As a contributor am I entitled to vote to keep the article, or voting for deleting/keeping is a privilege of Wikipedia Moderators only? Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Regarding the reliability of Obligement, this publication claims that it is a fanzine so it is not a reliable source. This has already been mentioned in the first AfD.[2]. Rilak (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Regarding the reliability of www.computerhistory.it, the website's own about page (http://www.computerhistory.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=82), states

      "Who are
      I'm a fan of retrocomputing that for years he devoted himself to the study of old machines and as a result of the history of computing.
      In this site I have gathered the results of my research.
      Legal
      ComputerHistory.it amateur is a product of information is not periodic, non-commercial and non-professional. This site is not a news organization and is updated without any periodicity, at the discretion of its author. Therefore, it can not be considered in any way as an editorial product under Law No 62 of 7.03.2001."

      (translated via Google Translate). This is conclusively a self-published, personal website detailing the amateur (as in not paid) historian research of a fan and is therefore not a reliable source. Rilak (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
      • The Computer History italian site is a site collecting information about the history of computers from an italian point of view. It is maintained by an amateur but is collecting reliable infos and testimonies about italian side of computer history, and it publish also the reliable contributions of any people who want to partecipate the collecting of infos. Wikipedia also is maintaned by amateurs and organized to collect infos provided by external contributors in the same way of Computer History. The difference is that Wikipewdia is not maintaned by a single person and people can contribute directly. So what?

• • • • Mr. Rilak, you are so quick to find quotes to diminish the reliability of a site, so you will apprecciate the Computer History Mission Statement declaration, whose principles are very solid (http://www.computerhistory.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43:benvenuti-su-computerhistoryit&catid=32:varie):

        "To give a future to our past
        On the net there are many resources on the history of computing, unfortunately mostly in English and Italian with little information on the computers. This site aims to fill this gap by documenting the history of computing with a particular interest in Italian.
        Can not miss the technical content such as descriptions of machines and technologies of the past. But the intent is to go further and provide an overview of the evolution of computing and the history of the companies that participated in this revolution.
        The site collects the results of own research of its webmaster, but it is open to everyone Voglino to contribute articles or photos or documents providing useful to the development of the site.
        If you have photos, manuals, advertising, software or hardware related to computers first Italian contattetemi!"

        (translated via Google Translate)

• • • • Also the vaste majority of Computer Museums are maintained by amateurs and not maintained periodically, want you to deprecate any information provided by these online museums?

• • • • And more, the definition of amateurish site in Italy is a disclaimer to avoid to be obliged to hire one professional journalist (in Italy are professionals only those who are registered in the Official Book of Journalists) as being "director responsible under the law" for the site itself. Also it is required that the maintainer is obliged to register the site as a real printed newspaper under Italian Law about Publishing Press (it requires to be enlisted in the list of printed publications in the nearest Local Court of Justice in Italy Legge n. 47 del 1948 -legge sulla stampa-). Giornale Online on Italian Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • Regarding the argument in the first paragraph, the comparisons to Wikipedia are invalid because Wikipedia is not a reliable source (this shouldn't be an unknown fact). Regarding the argument in the second paragraph, appreciation of the site's goals and "principles" (from the context of your argument, I think a better word is "honor" or "morality") is irrelevant to the question of reliability. Determining reliability (or the lack of) is not about finding nice things (or bad things) to say about a source: "Mr. Smith was always such a nice teacher who gave his all to help his students," means absolutely nothing at all when it comes to arguing that Mr. Smith is a reliable source. Likewise, "Mr. Anderson is mean," does not go towards in an argument that he is an unreliable source. Regarding the argument that because most computer history museums are run by amateurs, they should be considered reliable, otherwise a large number of sources would be rejected: This does not go towards indicating whether the site in question is reliable or not. The argument really sounds like, "You're being mean, so deem these sources reliable so you don't hurt their feelings." Regarding your final paragraph, you conveniently ignore the fact that the owner of the site in question stated that he was an amateur before the legal disclaimer. Rilak (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • Regarding retrorage.net, it is interesting to note that when I attempted to view what I think are forum posts that describe the site linked to from http://www.retroage.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=21&id=79&Itemid=204, registration was required. This looks like a fansite, an unreliable source. How many professional news sites or magazines require one to register in order to find out what the site or magazine is? Rilak (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Disregard the above, the requirement to register was a temporary server issue. Rilak (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Regarding retrorage.net, there is no indication that it is published under the conditions required by WP:N and WP:RS. The five pages found under http://www.retroage.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=21&id=79&Itemid=204 do not describe precisely what the site is. There is no mention of publisher, of a paid professional editorial staff, nothing. Rilak (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
      • There is no requirement for a reliable source to have paid staff on WP:RS.GL1zdA (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
        • WP:RS does not require that a publication have a paid professional staff. But WP:RS#Overview says "The following specific examples [the contents of WP:RS] cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." Do you really think that a site that does not even unambiguously say what it is indicates reliability? Do you think that a site that does not even say whether its run by fans or by a publisher/media company is indicative of reliability? Do you think that not even disclosing who (as in fan, professional journalist, or scholar, not as in the names of the authors) writes the site content goes towards reliability? I don't. If a source does not present any information about itself, so that as a result nobody can examine the information to determine how reliable it is, is it not reasonable to deem it unreliable due to insufficient evidence? Rilak (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: I think this article is notable enough, only that it is missing a few 3rd-party references, but it seems those 3rd-party references are hard to find... --Marko75 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Please see WP:ITSNOTABLE. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete: This was very properly deleted in the first place, and should not have been relisted here; if any of the Keep proponents had a problem with the close, DRV is the proper venue for it.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  19:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • @Marko75 3rd party references are increasing step by step, as long as Natami has now being complete, and it is expected soon a release for common users. As shown by the links I found, the actual interest of 3rd party sites is focused on interviewing the authors and developers of Natami. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Looking at the first AfD, I think there needs to be clarification in regards to the role third-party sources have. When it comes to determining notability, coverage in third-party references are not the only consideration; that is, by itself, the property of being independent of the topic (third-party) is no enough. WP:N requires the third-party references to be reliable sources as well; and the basic criteria for determining that is WP:RS. Rilak (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
      • SO which criteria of WP:RS did Amiga Future not meet? GL1zdA (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: The Natami article is functional to keep a more wide coverage on Wikipedia about the phenomenon of Homebuilt computer and Home computer remake. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: NatAmi is recognizable even by computer hardware stores and therefore complies with WP:N - [3] 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.LordBanter (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)— LordBanter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. v/r - TP 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • How does being sold (I assume this is what "recognizable computer hardware stores" means) by a computer hardware store satisfy WP:N's requirement for the topic to have been covered non-trivially by multiple independent, reliable secondary sources? And what evidence do you have for your ad hominem assertion that I am not neutral because I am promoting PPC-based Natami competitors? In the last AfD, I was portrayed as someone full of Amiga hate. Now I am involved in the Amiga business? Sorry, but that does not compute. Rilak (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - complies with WP:N. I dont see why it was deleted in its first AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:ITSNOTABLE: asserting that x is notable does not explain why it is notable and it certainly does not refute the evidence that supports the claim that x is not notable. Rilak (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete (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 article's hardware clones section. Total lack of reliable sources, and while I, as a geek, have considerable sympathy for the outpouring ofWP:ILIKEIT-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 therelevant 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. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • This way you can say any non-PC computer related publication can't be used to establish notability.GL1zdA (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Amiga Future, @ ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ Amiga Future reminds you of a Local Newspaper? LOL! When it was based in England, published by an indipendent publisher, it reached even more than 100.000 copies sold (if I remember well) There are in those times Amiga magazines that surpassed the number of 1.000.000 copies sold. Unfortunately the fact Amiga community shrinked, made AFuture selling actually only a few thousand copies (1000? 2000? 3000?), and Amiga community was lucky that a reseller like Vesalia keep the magazine alive by supporting it wit funds. But AFuture is a magazine with a decennal (or more) presence in newspaper stores in all GB (and now in Germany too)and had demonstrated its professionality and indipendence with literally hundreds of critical articles about Amiga products during its long lifetime. You can't judge an editorial product just by consider its actual shrinked community of reference, but only by checking its editorial line by inspecting globally all issues and professionality of articles during all its lifetime. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So you basically !voting twice. The point being?--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Article does not fulfill notability guidelines required for inclusion on Wikipedia. Koft (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

How might I ask?--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• • WP:Not notable Which guidelines? GL1zdA (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)