Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashumon


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Rashumon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable, defunct software. This article (which appears to have been added by the software's author) has no independent sourcing of any kind, so it does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. I've searched and I cannot find any reliable sources to verify the article or it's claims to be 'revolutionary'. MrOllie (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Well, to begin with, this is not a new article and I am NOT the one who wrote this article originally, just added some further information. There are many sources to backup the notability of this product. This product is considered to be notable because of its ability to handle multi-lingual text on Amiga computers before that was common. Just look at www.aminet.net and other sources for Amiga products. All the sources that follow are independent. Most of them are from the years 1989-1994 and many sources aren't indexed by Google.

1. Article about Rashumon at Amiga User International(UK)

2. Amiga Report article

3. Aminet (www.aminet.net)

4. http://leb.net/reader/text/reader.list/v11/n02.v11

5. An article about the Arabic support added to Rashumon

6. amigafuture (Germany)

7. "textfiles" - Amiga software products (among them Rashumon)

8. OS News

9. Full text where Rashumon was reviewed in Amiga World magazine

10. An article about Rashumon at Enigma Amiga Run, volume 54 page 12, Italy - see also a scan

11. A review by Sams Harari, editor of "32 Bit" Magazine, November 1991 (Hebrew, plus translation to English)

12. "Amiga my friend", a review about Rashumon published by Maariv_(newspaper) daily newspaper.

You can also view scanned copies of printed articles about this product: To verify the authenticy of the scanned articles, this web site holds all scanned volumes of Amazing Computing and here you can find issues of Amiga World. 13a. Amiga World - Article about Rashumon 13b. An article about Rashumon's new version, Amazing Computing 7-Apr-1992 13c. Another write-up about Rashumon, Amazing Computing 08-Oct-1993 13d. An article about Rashumon's Desktop Publishing version 1.2D in Amazing Computing Sep-1992 13e. An article about Rashumon version 2.3 at Amazing Computing, May 1994 13f. An article published in Germany, Aktuel Magazine 13g. An article published in Denmark, HiScore Magazine 13h. An article about Rashumon published at Amiga User International Magazine (UK), 1994 13i. A news article published by Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel, 1991 (Hebrew with translation into English) 13j. An article about Rashumon at Enigma Amiga Run, volume 54 page 12, Italy 13k. Certificate for Rashumon issued by the Israeli Ministry of Education and Calture 13l. Review about Rashumon published by daily newspaper Maariv_(newspaper) 1991 Author's sources:

14. Author's own article about the development of Rashumon (plus source code)

15. An article in Amiga.org user group, by the author

16. Flickr photo stream of sources and scanned material

Updated Michael.haephrati (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see two indiscriminate product directories, An old usenet post, and a scanned image that is too small to be legible. These are not the multiple, independent sources that we need. - MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Aminet is the official site for Amiga software. The write up (that appears too small) is here again:Article about Rashumon There are MANY other resources, most of them unfortunately are printed material but I have asked colleges form the Amiga community to look for such. Please remove the deletion nomination to give us time to provide more references but in my opinion, the sources that are currently will be sufficient to keep this article any how. Just to let you know, the Amiga magazines that mentioned Rashumon were: Amiga World (just added a link to it), and Amazing_Computing. The scanned write-up is from a UK magazine named Amiga Format. (I have the original somewhere). Michael.haephrati (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have updated my original list of sources and argument as per your comments. --Michael.haephrati (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Back then bidirectional support and proportional fonts were not features built into the OS and Rashumon had both. I was one of the customers and supporter of Rashumon. It was a product very unique to the Amiga in general and Amiga users in Israel in particular. Agovrin (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Washington, USA — Agovrin (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have seen here a request which came from another user to vote for this article. I am shocked and would like to ask you to ignore such odd request which causes more damage than good (I reverted it instantly). I think I have provided the necessary sources to back up the value of this article and wouldn't like such vandalism acts to hurt this article. Thanks for your understanding. Michael.haephrati (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Amazingly, that exact message was posted to an amiga forum, under your username, so who could have written that improper notice? I wonder... Gaijin42 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see how the sources (blogs, obscure magazines) and coverage depth meet our WP:RS guidelines to establish notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * delete The sources are reliable, and their age/obscurity is irrelevant, but the coverage therein is minimal. in passing blurbs do not count. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This was one of the important milestones in the history of Amiga software, a word-processor that was way ahead of its time in terms of WYSIWYG and Postscript support. I used this software so I can attest to its qualifications. Otherwise I have no connection to this program or its author.Yuvalg9 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin, the above user is involved in sock/meat puppetry and canvassing on this subject per this diff and is the subject of an SPI investigation as a suspected sock/meatsock, along with Agovrin, of Michael.Haephrati. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin, the above vote should be counted. The user was not proven a sock/meat puppetry (see investigation page), and to the best of my knowledge this is a genuine user (a real person), Yuval Goldstein, known for his involvement in another Amiga project, Photon Paint project. Please count this vote. M. H. 18:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs)


 * Delete - What mentions are out there are trivial and in mostly non-reliable sources. This is fast becoming a meatpuppet/sockpuppet happyfest, too. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - none of those sources seem like reliable sources to provide an indication of it's notability. Directory listings, adverts, an interview with the author, download sites etc are not third party reliable sources. Canterbury Tail   talk  20:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - By those sources given by Michael.haephrati above, it seems notable enough. Marko75 (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you mind telling me how you came across this AFD after a seven month absence? - MrOllie (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * MrOllie, you seem to be suspicious and negative to anyone who votes to keep the article. Looks like you have a personal issue here while everyone here is expected to be impartial.Yuvalg9 (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A desire to keep the project free of non-notable subjects and defending deletion discussions against a wave of sock/meatpuppets such as yourself does not mean that Ollie or myself or others have a "personal issue" here. This could be Rashumon or Polandball or Orville.  There was no bias towards any of these fan-driven projects, we just point to the simple fact that they do not meet the Wikipedia threshold for notability. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not Rashumon, nor Polandball, nor Orville. My name is Marko Seppänen, not anyone else. I almost take that as personal insult, distrusting me as user Marko75 to not be real. Therefore I will leave this discussion here. Marko75 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You did not understand a single word that I said. The point was, the claim that MrOllie has a "personal issue" just because he feels this article does not meet this projects notability standards is bullshit. I pointed out some similar deletion discussions in the past where the fans of said topics were passionate, but passion does not make a non-notable thing become notable here. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Tarc, you should be very careful in accusing accounts of being puppets. You have presented no evidence of such, so there is just as much evidence of such for Marko75 as there is of any of the other accounts voting for deletion of this article. Your accusation against Marko75 of "a wave of sock/meatpuppets such as yourself" and his direct response to this means that he did understand the very words that you said.  Please consider more carefully such accusations in the future.  Such accusations seems to indicate some sort of pre-bias against this subject or some editor involved in the article.  In other words, they bias people against your position.  Val42 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Take your "caution" elsewhere, as I dismiss it out of hand. We have piles of "new" editors showing up here who have never edited anywhere else, we have one who votes to keep after 5 months of inactivity, and the cherry on top was thus Yuvalg9 guy screwing up and posting his canvassing notice here, soliciting keep votes from other fanboys off-wiki.  You're all quite clearly complicit in gaming and undermining this deletion discussion.  If you do not like simple truths pointed out to you, then don't try to pull easily-exposed stunts like this in public. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Val42 You are perfectly right about that. AFDs typically don't restrict editors from voting even if they don't have any (or have short) editing history. In this case, this debate is semi-protected, so there aren't any sockpuppeteers here for sure, and Yuvalg is a real person. Not a puppet. See the investigation page. If you look at the talk page of the AFD you will find another editor who wasn't allowed to express his opinion. As I said, some Administrators here are too easy on the trigger... M. H. 15:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs)


 * Keep Because of unique features -- Polluks ★  09:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into Amiga software. This is probably the best compromise because Wikipedia's standards of "what should have its own article" are stricter than its standards of "what should be mentioned" (in another article).  I was contacted by Wikipedia email about this, and in this case I have interpreted it as a good faith request for help from an editor whose English is not perfect and who might not have understood all the relevant guidelines.  By the way, describing a feature as "revolutionary" is probably not NPOV (at best, if you can find a 'reliable source' that said such a thing, you could quote what it said, but the Wikipedia text itself should probably be more neutral).  The same goes for describing the screen updates as "ultra fast" (maybe it would be more interesting if the article said something about the method that was used for this and exactly how much of a speedup it got over other wordprocessors of the time).  WordStar had multiple selections before Rashumon, so multiple selections wasn't original, although it's possible that Rashumon's multiple selections worked a bit differently from Wordstar's; perhaps they worked a bit like GIMP's discontinuous selections?  anyway it would probably be necessary to find outside sources that said a feature was useful to others to demonstrate notability (for example, has anyone ever found it useful to search for a word in a specific colour?)  I've implemented many features in my own software that I hoped would be really useful to everyone, but in some cases I could be the only one who ever used that feature.  Unfortunately, Wikipedia is mostly a notebook about what is/was important to the community, not what's actually good.  If your software or my software has some feature of amazing value, but nobody else can see it, then that doesn't count on Wikipedia.  But remember that Wikipedia isn't everything!  Just because Wikipedia doesn't have an article on something, that doesn't mean there's no real value in that thing.  Incidentally a while ago I put an essay on my personal website (full of original research and other no-nos) called the “go and argue with them” fallacy which I hope will help us not to get too carried away with making sure this or that reference site says what we want :-) Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 13:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rashumon was published in 1989 and had discontinuous selections and was the only graphic word processor to have that. Anyhow, to follow your lead, I would say that many features such as "searching the word 'tomato' in red and replacing it with 'banana' in yellow" were indeed gimmicks, and same goes with the feature of having the text read out load, but it happens that these two were mentioned and emphasized as unique by the news articles and reviews published about Rashumon, which some of them are brought here. (After decision is made, I will add some of these as references in the article itself). In my opinion, the notability Rashumon has, lays on the multilinguality, as it brought Amiga users the ability to edit text in opposed direction languages (such as Hebrew-English, or Arabic-French), which no other word processor for the Amiga could provide. The Operating System didn't support that, (unlike Any OS these days that embed this functionality), so it required huge custom and low level development. M. H. 16:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into Amiga productivity software. It would be better in this more-specific page.  I was contacted by email because I'm an Amiga user from near its beginning (1985), but haven't used it since a few years after Commodore went bankrupt.  However, I have never heard of this software before. Val42 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Being the only word processor that was available for editing documents with multiple and opposed direction languages on the Amiga, and as the sources brought are indeed genuine and reliable (news papers and magazines), Rashumon deserves to keep it's own page (which exists for 3 years already).M. H. 16:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs)


 * Comment Why I think Rashumon deserves it's own separate article. Please look at these examples of news articles from reliable sources:

- A review done by Sems Harari, "32 Bit" Magazine (Hebrew + translation to English)


 * Quote: "... Rashumon can combine text in two languages properly; each line can be characterize separately based on its main language... A unique graphic word processor for the Amiga computer...".

- A write up by Amiga User International
 * Quote: "... This seems appropriate as HarmonySoft emphasises multilingual aspect of their program."

- Write With A Twist, published by Amiga World Magazine
 * Quote: "Want to combine the Greek, Arabic, English and Hebrew languages in one document? The Rashumon, Graphic Word Processor / DTP Publisher can do it"  M. H.  17:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment for what it's worth, I just copied/pasted all those refs into the article (new References section). It needs more work though (maybe by someone more familiar with Amigas than I am; the only Amiga I ever touched was the one that happened to be connected to a piano keyboard in a school music department, and all I did then was save a MIDI file for further work on a PC; I never got any idea about how to do any real work on the Amiga). Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! I arranged these sources and references a bit (cosmetically) but still need to work on it, and will appreciate any help. --M. H. 19:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have now listed this article on the "rescue list" at WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron as I think there is potential if all these references can be sorted out. Unfortunately I don't have much time to help myself during the time-frame of this deletion discussion.  But I would say keep if these refs can be sorted out and we can clearly show what was notable about this piece of software.  (In fact, if my reading of Deletion process is correct, the original nominator of the AfD ought to withdraw their nomination if the reason for it goes away.) Silas S. Brown(email, talk) 20:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The article has this comment at the top: For administrator use only: OK I understand this is "for administrator use only" but just out of curiosity can someone explain what result=keep means when the AfD is still open? Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What does result=keep mean in this comment?
 * I have done some research and in the AfD template, there are fields like 'date', 'page' ,etc. One of these fields is 'result" and the default value for this field is "keep". --M. H. 19:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept, an admin closing the debate would copy that template to the talk page of the article. In that way, editors would know that the article had been nominated for deletion, had been kept, and could read the debate. If the article is deleted, the template doesn't matter because there would be no talk page to copy it to - so there's no "delete" version. It's just a time saver for whatever admin comes through to close out the debate, and it is part of every single AFD tag, regardless of the article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Magazines have written articles about it in the past. Therefore it clearly meets the general notability guidelines.  Not all old magazines are archived online.  Obviously the Amiga computer system is long dead and gone, so no magazines dedicated to it are still going.   D r e a m Focus  23:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Messy AFD aside, the sources provided show that it clearly meets WP:GNG: reviewed/discussed in a lot of reliable printed magazines in many languages. Let us remember that notability is not temporary. -- cyclopia speak!  08:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep decent coverage for passing general notability threshold. No prejudice against a merging discussion on the article talk page. Cavarrone 08:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm neutral as to whether this article should be deleted or kept, but I felt the need to disclose this. Michael.haephrati has been contacting me by e-mail since my initial detective-work on ANI. His e-mail confirmed that it was him (not someone else named Michael Haephrati) who posted the off-wiki canvassing, and that he had edited the post to be more "neural" after I pointed it out on ANI. His initial e-mail also mentioned that he was "looking for cooperation with any user or editor". He has apparently read WP:CANVAS and made a good-faith misinterpretation of the part that says "Notifications must be ... neutrally worded with a neutral title" to refer to off-wiki communications as well as talk page comments. It therefore seems incredibly likely to me that Michael.haephrati located Marko75 by some means (though they have had effectively no interaction before now) and in good-faith contacted him by e-mail. Or, given the history here, it might have been another user who contacted him. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect I resent that accusation. Sending onsite email messages (WP:EMAIL) is permitted to those who allowed that in their account's preferences (and that can be disabled by any one at any time). Publishing the contents of a private email is considered to be an WP:EMAILABUSE. Nevertheless, I haven't contacted Marko75 and don't know him at all. According to the Uw-canvas template text, "...While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view...". I indeed failed to comply with that at first but I have acknowledged my mistake and apologized in my Talk page, and of course revised the wordings of my message, including my offsite message. Just for the record, I am not yuvalg9 and DID NOT publish my original offsite message (prior to revising it by me) in this page. He did it. copying the text from my old post and has done that on his own. I sent very few 'friendly notices' including a one to Hijiri 88 which was very kind, helpful and guided me as for what I should and should not do. That being said, onsite and offsite messages ARE allowed and these messages were 'limited and reflected a neutral point of view'. (I have posted in an Amiga forum an invitation to participate in this debate and to vote for keeping or for deleting this article). People makes mistakes and no one is perfect, but this discussion is about the notability of a product and about keeping or deleting an article. The article and me are two different and separate entities, and as someone wrote here, notability is not temporary...M. H.  11:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I never accused you of being Yuvalg9. Anyone who did so would need to be a complete idiot, as you clearly meant to hide that posting from the Wikipedia community as indicated by your reverting Yuvalg9. Please take that accusation back. You do, however, above assert that you are not the original creator of the article, even though that user in his last edit seemed to strongly imply that he was none other than you. Sending e-mails to multiple users, no matter how neutral they are, is frowned upon, as I have already told you in our e-mail interaction. Start using user talk pages, stop posting obviously NOT neutral messages on external forums, and stop claiming not to be the same person as the original creator of the article, and then we might be able to trust you as a Wikipedia editor. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that I am not yuvalg9, but I have provided a claim thinking otherwise. I didn't try to hide any posting (it is impossible to hide anything in Wikipedia, as all history is kept forever), and I thought what yuvalg9 did was inappropriate. At that time, and as I tried to explain again and again, I haven't realized that there could be such thing as offsite canvasing, so I didn't see any problem with the original forum message I have posted offsite, which is identical to what yuvalg9 has posted here (which is why I assumed he copied form this forum). I then realized that canvasing can also take place offsite, and changed this forum message and wrote about that in my Talk page. I didn't try to hide the original forum and in fact it appears in my reference list. I am aware about what you wrote to me in our private emails exchange and first I didn't mass email, but used a Wikipedia feature. If there is an email feature, I (and anyone) can use it. If you don't want to receive emails, change your account's settings. Also, I am not the creator of this article and even though I have connection to the old company Harmony Soft, being one of the founders, that doesn't mean I was the only founder nor the only person involved. Several persons where involved in this venture and I am not obliged to reveal the identity of whom started this article, even if I knew who he or she is. I don't know your identity, and same goes with most of the Wikipedia users who doesn't use their real name. Please don't use the word "we" when you express your own opinion. I understand from your message that you don't trust me as an editor, and I am sorry to hear that. I got some positive feedbacks about my editing and I can tell you that I do trust you as an editor. Since I trust you, and to be on the safe side, I removed the offsite forum message.M. H.  18:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Updated M. H.  08:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note MH, despite promising to refrain from on- and off-site canvassing, has maintained this thread post with "Wikipedia page about an Amiga word processor (Rashumon)" in the title, despite having apparently edited the posting "Yesterday at 12:21 PM..". Someone named AndreasM posted this on "24.08.2013 - 09:31", which appears to be a copy of something MH posted after the canvassing scandal took place:

"If you have an opinion about that matter, Please express it in this page. (Apparently new Wikipedia members can't vote)

If you have more reliable sources such as magazine reviews, etc. please send them to me.

Thanks,

Michael Haephrati

I'm noticing that taken purely on number of !votes, "Keep" seems to have the lead, but given the rampant canvassing ... I don't envy the admin who has to figure out how to close this fairly ... maybe block MH and re-nominate with a semi-protected AFD and close it after 4 days ...

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 *  I am not trying to fight you back but please get off of me!!! I don't know and don't care who published this forum message (that seems to be a copy of the one I have deleted, from a different forum. You (and so am I) can't control the entire world, but in any case I am 100% sure that my original message (which I have deleted) was perfectly OK and kept a natural tone, and even though, to be on the safe side, and to show my respect to the Wikipedia community. I deleted my message off site. I am not going to continue this ridicules argument with you, which goes round and round in circles.M. H. 13:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * MH,  . The parenthetical statement clearly shows you edited the message after the page was protected. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * MH, don't provoke me with a gross personal attack so I respond with justifiably foul language on an essentially hidden forum, then re-post my comment in the middle of this AFD and then claim my defence against your unprovoked personal attack was itself a personal attack. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 17:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? When you use bad language against someone, take responsibility! Apologize! Don't look for excuses... I preferred all discussions to take place in the Talk page. You insisted and edit-war'ed me to move them back and now you are complaining that your embarrassing cursing appear in the main page? Michael Haephrati 18:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs)


 * Hijiri 88, You are out of line and writing to other editors here the following text: "shove them up your ass" will probably lead to blocking you (again), due to breaching the Wikipedia Civility code, so this is your last warning. Please take back these expressions that don't belong here and if you don't I will have to file a formal complaint about is as I am NOT going to tolerate such language.
 * "Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians. This applies equally to all Wikipedians: it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in blocks.". M. H. 13:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs)

I have just checked my own offsite post which was changed and doesn't mention Wikipedia at all. The original post was about 2 issues and I left the 2nd issue which has nothing to do with Wikipedia and this debate. I have now noticed that the title wasn't changed and I have changed it.M. H. 13:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs)
 * I believe you mean to say that the post NO LONGER contains references to wikipedia, because it certainly did originally. Haephrati_canvsassing.png Gaijin42 (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The screenshot that you have placed here is the original version which was changed after several minutes. I then changed the text accordingly, phrasing my invitation to be neutral, asking visitors to express their opinion and vote to delete or keep the article, and finally, even though not required to, deleted the post entirely to be on the safe side. M. H. 15:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Mostly because MH's harassing of me both on-wiki and by e-mail has convinced me that something must be fishy here. No prejudice toward a non-COI, non-sock-using editor creating a new article at a later date. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note for clarity Despite MH's comment below (I really wish he'd stop (1) removing/editing other users' comments and (2) requesting that other users remove/edit their own comments), I actually have a nuanced opinion on what should be done with this article. In my opinion, this AFD has been a complete sham since last week, since roughly half of the !votes need to be dismissed out of hand and the one posting all the sources is an obvious COI editor who is also responsible for 100% of the off-site canvassing, and has been lying constantly and doing his very best to cover up his underhand activities. I think the sources do technically make the topic meet GNG (though just barely), but I think more can be gained from deleting the article, keeping this AFD, and allowing other users to come along later and create a decent article using the sources MH has provided us. That's what I meant by "no prejudice toward a non-COI, non-sock-using editor creating a new article at a later date". MH has provided us with some semi-decent sources, but he's also spent precisely zero-effort on using these sources to improve the article itself, while posting non-stop screes against his fellow Wikipedians, altering/removing/refactoring their edits, and constantly refusing to admit how many users he e-mailed, how many external forums he asked for help on, how many accounts he has edited from. I therefore think not only has this AFD been poisoned, but the article itself has been poisoned by all of these scandals, and there's nothing to be lost -- and plenty to be gained -- by deleting the current article and starting over. And if anyone thinks this is an ad hominem argument, bear in mind that if I worked that way I would be at least as likely to !vote the same way as Lukeno94 as I am to !vote the opposite way as MH. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to Closing Admin: this is not a genuine vote but someone trying to start a personal fight with me, calling me names and cursing me. The place for such attacks is definitely not in this page. The article about Rashumon is not me, and I am not the article. These are 2 separate entities. See the talk page for examples of Hijiri 88's attacks. Hijiri 88 has placed already a comment about this article and wrote: "I'm neutral as to whether this article should be deleted or kept", but I felt the need to disclose this. Michael.haephrati has". So now, suddenly he has a different opinion about this article? doesn't seem so. If the sources provided here proves that this article is about a notable product, then, as someone wrote here: notability is not temporary. A vote can't be done as a "revenge" or as part of a personal dispute or attack. It should be noted. I don't know him and don't have anything against him, even though he seems to keep posting more and more comments and accusations and till now, I took the time and answered to each and one of them, trying to be polite as much as I can. Please ignore this vote.M. H. 14:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you don't get to do that. The closing admin will review all comments and judge them on the merits. An editor might want an article deleted, then see that it has been improved and later change his/her recommendation. The reverse can also be true - an article might look ok on its face, but later be shown to be a copyright violation. You don't get to decide what counts and what does not. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:GNG. Michael is strongly advised to avoid canvassing off-site editors to participate in this AfD, and he should stop disruptively removing things he disagrees with. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The long list of article shows that this passes WP:GNG. We don't punish the behavior of some editors by penalizing our readers. The behavioral issues can be solved at ANI, where there is a thread posted. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets GNG, as it has requisite coverage in independent sources.  Needs clean-up, but that is not cause to delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * note to closing admin The MH account has now been blocked as a sock/disruptive editor. As they have extensively edited this discussion, I think it would be disruptive for me to go through and strike/delete everything, but keep it in mind. Based on the later !votes from established editors, consensus may well be that this passes GNG in spite of the shenanigans involved earlier. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.