| Revision as of 08:02, 18 September 2012 editHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,391 edits Did I just out myself? (>_<)← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:50, 22 September 2012 edit undoBagworm (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers8,097 edits rm redirect now that it has gone from article pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Untitled== | |||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| <Although for the record, even though I encourage you to make an article on "tanka prose" now, I still haven't seen any evidence that it is notable or belongs on Misplaced Pages. You do still need to provide reliable, secondary sources, and I still don't recognize the articles and books you have cited as valid references for Misplaced Pages. They have so many errors. I haven't read the McCullough piece you cited, but I highly doubt it makes a claim that virtually of classical Japanese literature belongs to a "genus" called "tanka prose". And also the ''Kojiki'' does not contain short prose passages to explain background of poems. It is not a poetic anthology. It is a prose work. (And not all the poems in either it or the ''Man'youshuu'' are tanka anyway, so the name "tanka prose" is silly.) ] (]) 13:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC) > | <Although for the record, even though I encourage you to make an article on "tanka prose" now, I still haven't seen any evidence that it is notable or belongs on Misplaced Pages. You do still need to provide reliable, secondary sources, and I still don't recognize the articles and books you have cited as valid references for Misplaced Pages. They have so many errors. I haven't read the McCullough piece you cited, but I highly doubt it makes a claim that virtually of classical Japanese literature belongs to a "genus" called "tanka prose". And also the ''Kojiki'' does not contain short prose passages to explain background of poems. It is not a poetic anthology. It is a prose work. (And not all the poems in either it or the ''Man'youshuu'' are tanka anyway, so the name "tanka prose" is silly.) ] (]) 13:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC) > | ||
| <Also, please note: if you intend to create a new article under this title, that "nclusion on Misplaced Pages for the most part means meeting the ], which in a summary, requires there to be multiple ] ''independent of the subject'' that provide more than just a mere trivial mention" (]). Just because there are external online sources that attest to the '''existence''' of "tanka prose", this does not mean that they are independent of the subject. As far as I could see, all of the sources cited in the previous article were from publications aimed at producing and distributing the material discussed within the article. Please find more objective sources or I will request any article produced in the future to be deleted.] (]) 08:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)> | <Also, please note: if you intend to create a new article under this title, that "nclusion on Misplaced Pages for the most part means meeting the ], which in a summary, requires there to be multiple ] ''independent of the subject'' that provide more than just a mere trivial mention" (]). Just because there are external online sources that attest to the '''existence''' of "tanka prose", this does not mean that they are independent of the subject. As far as I could see, all of the sources cited in the previous article were from publications aimed at producing and distributing the material discussed within the article. Please find more objective sources or I will request any article produced in the future to be deleted.] (]) 08:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)> | ||
Revision as of 22:50, 22 September 2012
Untitled
<Although for the record, even though I encourage you to make an article on "tanka prose" now, I still haven't seen any evidence that it is notable or belongs on Misplaced Pages. You do still need to provide reliable, secondary sources, and I still don't recognize the articles and books you have cited as valid references for Misplaced Pages. They have so many errors. I haven't read the McCullough piece you cited, but I highly doubt it makes a claim that virtually of classical Japanese literature belongs to a "genus" called "tanka prose". And also the Kojiki does not contain short prose passages to explain background of poems. It is not a poetic anthology. It is a prose work. (And not all the poems in either it or the Man'youshuu are tanka anyway, so the name "tanka prose" is silly.) elvenscout742 (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC) > <Also, please note: if you intend to create a new article under this title, that "nclusion on Misplaced Pages for the most part means meeting the general notability guideline, which in a summary, requires there to be multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that provide more than just a mere trivial mention" (WP:ENN). Just because there are external online sources that attest to the existence of "tanka prose", this does not mean that they are independent of the subject. As far as I could see, all of the sources cited in the previous article were from publications aimed at producing and distributing the material discussed within the article. Please find more objective sources or I will request any article produced in the future to be deleted.elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)>