Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion

[Linde]

How the frig is Wicki an encyclopaedia !!! :confused:

Some pages may contain some facts but plenty of others seem to be nothing more then some anonymous numpties opinons.... :rolleyes:

... and I suppose keeping low-quality articles about non-existant hardware that can't cite any reputable sources will help in this regard. Right? I'm not trying to deride Natami here, but there simply isn't much that can be said about it in terms of matters of fact.

Even stuff quoted from some big manufacturers contain BS that contradicts each other, talking about pages like where they can't even agree on how to calculate how big a Gigabyte or Terabyte is when it comes to HDs used on an Apple or a PC... :confused:

That's because different computer systems calculate drive/RAM sizes differently. It has nothing to do with the quality of wikipedia, and I can't really see why you would think otherwise. This matter is detailed in the "gigabyte" article, a well-cited and informative article on the subject. On wikipedia.

Wiki may be useful for some things but at the end of the day it's like 90% of stuff on the net ie: mostly opinions slanted in favour of the author...

Unlike most places on the web, though, you are expected to cite sources when making claims of fact. When people don't, you can edit the articles yourself. I find myself adding [citation needed] to stuff every day, and even that passive kind of editing style actually helps improving the quality of the site.

Anyone who thinks that half the crap they read on the net is the gospel truth and the ultimate answer to their questions needs to put against the wall and shot...

I agree, but you should know that wikipedia doesn't simply make itself. It is the responsibility of its users. As with anything, even outside the web (believe it or not , if you want the facts straight, there's an effort involved, and you have to critically analyze any information which you might come to rely on. I have often found that the quality of wikipedia surpasses other media, printed, broadcasted, anything... Any fact dispute is open to the public, and if you find anything dubious, you can make the changes yourself or open a dispute, and you'll often find that others have done so already.

Short story: Wikipedia is not a replacement for critical thinking and research, but it is often half-way there, which is a lot further than most printed encyclopedias.

[Linde]

However the Natami article does seem to have some partially useful information on it.  

Whether useful or not, if there's little to nothing to support the factuality of the information, it has no place in an encyclopedia. I can't believe this attitude. It's not a scrap book for whatever useful information you can think of, unless you can find multiple sources to support the factuality and notability of it.

As apposed to something like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_USA

- It cites independent sources.
- Even so, its notability is (understandably) disputed, which is mentioned at the top of the article for all to see to be able to make their own decisions.
I think that it's a good example of why wikipedia is such a great concept.
 

If the project goes belly up then the Wiki article maybe the only thing left to tell the tail that it even existsed. So why shouldn't it be left on?

Then you'll just have to find another site to use as an archeological resource. Wikipedia, primarily, is NOT.

What I really don't understand is that whenever group X or subculture Y has their favorite article on obscure subject Z, relevant only to them deleted, they automatically see it as a personal insult. Are people really so far up in themselves that they can't assume a somewhat objective stance on these things?

BTW, I noticed that some of you complained about the Hyperion article, but none of you bothered to make the change. You are complaining about something that so obviously is a community effort (where everyone's invited) without lifting a finger to fix even a simple typo yourselves.

[Linde]

There must be 100s of millions of articles in Wikipedia.  How can you mark something for deletion based on lack of notoriety when that's what Wikipedia does.  Double edged sword that one.

If you think that an article isn't notable enough, go ahead and mark it as such. You are free to contest (or, boldly, just remove) any information that might seem redundant or irrelevant. I have done so (successfully) many times. You should read the notability guideline, which lists many cases under which both the CUSA and Natami articles fall.

I don't understand the likening to a double edged sword in this case. I can only see it as the result of a biased and unfounded us-against-them mentality, combined with a complete ignorance to how wikipedia works and even what it is supposed to be.