Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:41, 4 October 2012 editStalwart111 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,939 editsm →Resolution: - spelling← Previous edit Revision as of 04:23, 5 October 2012 edit undoTristan noir (talk | contribs)973 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 201: Line 201:


:::::This is a complex source since there is a variety of items including Woodward-self-published books, Woodward interviews published in other journals, book reviews of Woodward publications. For the purposes of notability, all of the references to 'tanka prose' are the end product of Woodward (expressed directly by him or repeated by others in credit to him or through his publishing). Woodward is not independent of tanka prose, rather central to it. Thus as a group it fails 1.4 (independence). The sources individually may pass or fail different notability criteria but too complex to untangle since they all fail 1.4. -- ] (]) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC) :::::This is a complex source since there is a variety of items including Woodward-self-published books, Woodward interviews published in other journals, book reviews of Woodward publications. For the purposes of notability, all of the references to 'tanka prose' are the end product of Woodward (expressed directly by him or repeated by others in credit to him or through his publishing). Woodward is not independent of tanka prose, rather central to it. Thus as a group it fails 1.4 (independence). The sources individually may pass or fail different notability criteria but too complex to untangle since they all fail 1.4. -- ] (]) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

::::::You can call a white dog black as often as you like but the dog will still be white. POD, like old-fashioned job printing, is a manufacturing process; both are for-hire contractors to commercial and small press literary houses, to institutions (universities) and self-published individuals. The test of self-publishing, as common definition and the Misplaced Pages guidelines agree, is whether or not the author directly pays a second party to publish his work. A book or article that is not self-published follows this pattern: ''Author A submits to editor/publisher B who (without a fee from the author) accepts and contracts the printing service to POD/Jobprinter C.'' This pattern applies to Random House, Princeton University and to MET Press (as well as its journal, ''Modern English Tanka''). The concerted effort to marginalize the writings here discussed as self-published, despite plain evidence to the contrary, is unsettling. If you were to take this discussion outside of its present cloistered confines and place it, say, at a PEN International Congress, an Independent Book Publishers Association Conference or a Council of Literary Magazines and Presses Conference, the remarks made here with respect to self-publishing would be met with incredulity, if not open laughter.

::::::I’ll also have to take issue with Stalwart’s assertion that the source being discussed here ''“invented" the style in question''. We’re not dealing with a literary style, first, but with a literary form; the many practitioners of the form in question have individual styles. The larger point, however, is this silly claim that the form in question was one person’s ''invention''. Like the somewhat desperate recitation of the mantra ''self-publishing'', the facts are simply not in accord with Stalwart’s assertion. If Woodward invented anything, it was not a literary form but a descriptive phrase to identify it. This is clear from his “Introduction” to the ''Tanka Prose Anthology'': “Japanese criticism, ancient and modern, offers no comprehensive term that might encompass the many forms and styles that the wedding of tanka and prose admits. Instead, the terminology employed in the scholarly literature is form-specific, addressing not the genus but the individual species…. The first problem to address in defining tanka prose…is nomenclature. Whereas Japanese waka practice and literary criticism provide no precedent, the analogy of tanka plus prose to the latter development of haibun does. The term haibun, when applied to a literary composition, most commonly signifies haiku plus prose “written in the spirit of haiku.” Haiku prose or haikai prose would be an apt English equivalent of the Japanese word, haibun. Upon the same grounds, tanka prose becomes a reasonable term to apply to literary specimens that incorporate tanka plus prose….” That the form precedes his coined term is clear from the ''independently published'' record; the article here proposed for deletion and the anthology present numerous works that pre-date the Woodward source and that were published wholly independent of him. For these reasons, I disagree with the assessment of Stalwart and Green Cardamom that this source fails 1.3 and 1.4.] (]) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


:::*(2) Lucky, Bob (Editor). (July 2011) (the other Bob Lucky source is a Woodward source) :::*(2) Lucky, Bob (Editor). (July 2011) (the other Bob Lucky source is a Woodward source)
:::::Again, most of the sources cited for this work come directly from Misplaced Pages (note ]), but more specifically are the same Woodward "references" above. Aside from the fact that copy-pasting references from WP wouldn't be considered particularly scholarly, the site in question is essentially a ] with "guest editors" comprised mostly of the same small group of people cited by Woodward. For all of those reasons I contend this isn't really a reliable source. Fails 2.2 and 2.4 of your matrix. ] ] 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC) :::::Again, most of the sources cited for this work come directly from Misplaced Pages (note ]), but more specifically are the same Woodward "references" above. Aside from the fact that copy-pasting references from WP wouldn't be considered particularly scholarly, the site in question is essentially a ] with "guest editors" comprised mostly of the same small group of people cited by Woodward. For all of those reasons I contend this isn't really a reliable source. Fails 2.2 and 2.4 of your matrix. ] ] 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Has some independence but Lucky Bob also has connections to Woodward. According to ] (footnote #4): "Works produced by the subject, ''or those with a strong connection to them,'' are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." Concerned with reliable source it's uncertain what vetting if any was done for this paper. Since 'literary genre' is a scholarly topic we can expect to have at least some "reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." (see ]). Fail 2.2 and 2.4 -- ] (]) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC) :::::Has some independence but Lucky Bob also has connections to Woodward. According to ] (footnote #4): "Works produced by the subject, ''or those with a strong connection to them,'' are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." Concerned with reliable source it's uncertain what vetting if any was done for this paper. Since 'literary genre' is a scholarly topic we can expect to have at least some "reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." (see ]). Fail 2.2 and 2.4 -- ] (]) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

::::::Again, before being able to discuss notability, I’m called upon, by the preceding comments, to first address points of misapprehension or misrepresentation of fact. Stalwart states unequivocally that (a) ''the site in question is essentially a blog'', and (b) that it has ''“guest editors” comprised mostly of the same small group of people cited by Woodward''. The site, in fact, is the online home of a hardcopy journal, ''Atlas Poetica''. The guest editors are independent of the journal proper and they edit only those special features found . I made a quick count and found that 12 guest editors are listed there. Most can be demonstrated to have little or no connection with this first source.

::::::Cardamom’s comments raise two other problems. He insists that ''literary genre is a scholarly topic'' which, indeed, it is. But genre is first and foremost a ''literary topic'', like questions of literary form, and the writers of said forms, and not scholars, are the first persons to encounter this topic and to struggle with its definition. I say this to insist upon what I believe is an important point: that in discussions of living or contemporary literature, as over-and-against historical literature, those writers engaged in the form are the first witnesses and first scholars, if you will. The user who proposed the article on tanka prose for deletion consistently confounded these matters, insisting upon judging a modern English literary phenomenon by criteria drawn from Japanese scholarship. Writing communities, whether or not scholars are alive to the fact, tend to be relatively small, so much so that most parties, large and small, have some acquaintance. One might look only to the history of American poetry, for example, and review the complex of personal relationships between Ezra Pound, William Carlos Williams, Marianne Moore, and H.D. or the similar web later between members of the Beat Generation. For these reasons, it should not be surprising that writers who share common goals, such as those involved in tanka prose, may know each other just as do (and I apologize for the shocking comparison) the fellow professors of a university’s English Department. I offer these remarks to explain why I believe that Cardamom’s citation of ] and ] are inaccurately applied in this instance. Therefore, I dissent from the opinion of Stalwart and Cardamom above and assert that the source passes muster of 2.2 and 2.4.] (]) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


:::*(3) Prime, Patricia. Modern English Tanka V3, N1 :::*(3) Prime, Patricia. Modern English Tanka V3, N1
Line 212: Line 220:


:::::I think it might fail 2.4 because in the paper Patricia mentions a connection to Woodward. It also fails 2.2 since it's not academically vetted and we are dealing with a scholarly topic (]). Not every source must be strictly academic but we need at least some evidence of the genre's acceptance in the academic world. 2.1 might also be a problem but I will leave that open. So fails 2.2, 2.4 and maybe 2.1-- ] (]) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC) :::::I think it might fail 2.4 because in the paper Patricia mentions a connection to Woodward. It also fails 2.2 since it's not academically vetted and we are dealing with a scholarly topic (]). Not every source must be strictly academic but we need at least some evidence of the genre's acceptance in the academic world. 2.1 might also be a problem but I will leave that open. So fails 2.2, 2.4 and maybe 2.1-- ] (]) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

::::::Stalwart, above, seems to have confused the Kunschke source in German below and the Prime article in ''Modern English Tanka'' here under discussion. That is the only sense I could make of his statement that the PDF version of a printed journal (MET) was a blog. Again, we face the same misrepresentation of fact, viz., that an article by Author A accepted by Editor B is somehow self-published and thereby disqualified; that the author Prime is acquainted with the first source (Elvenscout goes so far as to claim that she has ''interviewed Woodward on several occasions''; one occasion is cited in the references to the article; I challenge E. to offer ''evidence'' to support his hyperbole) and is thereby disqualified. And we have again what I take to be an unreasonable expectation, that is, that a literary topic’s proper authority is academic scholarship as over-and-against the writings of poets and literary critics. It should be obvious, from my remarks, that I’m in the minority and dissent from the above opinions on the issue of notability.] (]) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


:::*(4) at TankaNetz :::*(4) at TankaNetz
Line 221: Line 231:


:::::Source has some independence but also connections to Woodward. According to ] (footnote #4): "Works produced by the subject, ''or those with a strong connection to them,'' are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." It also has the same issue of reliability since this is an academic topic and there is no clear scholarly vetting process through peer review or submission to "well-regarded academic presses" (]). Fails 5.2 and 5.4 -- ] (]) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC) :::::Source has some independence but also connections to Woodward. According to ] (footnote #4): "Works produced by the subject, ''or those with a strong connection to them,'' are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." It also has the same issue of reliability since this is an academic topic and there is no clear scholarly vetting process through peer review or submission to "well-regarded academic presses" (]). Fails 5.2 and 5.4 -- ] (]) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

::::::The characterization by Stalwart of the author of this item as ''a blogger who, in this instance, has turned his hand to writing a slightly-more-scholarly style of essay'' is deserving of contempt and has no place in this discussion. Beyond that, Stalwart chants his tired refrain (''self-publishing'') and spices that with further evidence of his bias by placing words like “sources” and “authors” in quotation marks. His clear attempts at character assassination are self-evident. Beyond this venom, he says nothing coherent or persuasive about notability. I offered my reasons above, under Lucky, item #2, for dissenting from Cardamom’s specific application of ] and ] to these items. I disagree for the same reasons here.] (]) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:23, 5 October 2012

Tanka prose

Tanka prose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article discusses an obscure neologism without citing any reliable sources. It was apparently created to promote said neologism. Does not meet WP:N. Describes an obscure modern poetry form/movement, and all the sources cited are primary sources, written by members of the small, apparently non-notable movement in question. Article itself fails to establish the notability of its subject-matter, and since it only cites primary sources is apparently original research. Appears to have been substantially edited by only one user. Said user, when repeatedly prompted, refused to cite reliable, secondary sources, but has admitted elsewhere that it is unlikely any such sources exist. I have tried extensively to discuss this issue on the article talk page with said user, but have only met with personal attacks. The minor literary movement described in the article clearly does not meet Misplaced Pages standards of notability, and even the primary sources it cites are poorly-researched and make ridiculous claims that the movement has existed since eighth-century Japan. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Extended content
  • Comment -- While only peripherally related to the above AfD nomination, I need to point out that I put a proposed deletion tag on the page yesterday, and the user responsible for the page deleted it. Said user then posted a comment on the talk page, not addressing the core issue of the lack of sources, but instead attacking me personally. Said user mentioned a dispute over content, but this dispute is already over and is entirely irrelevant to the proposed deletion. It concerned this user's repeated attempts to include ridiculous theories about ancient Japanese literature in the page. Since the page is original research, and discusses a topic for which no reliable sources exist, the former dispute about content is irrelevant. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is difficult for non-specialists to form a proper judgement on a literary issue such as this. Firstly it is clear that Tanka is a recognised form with plenty of reliable sources. Secondly, the references already in the article, and the existence of journals like Haibun Today make it clear that Tanka prose also exists to the extent that many learned articles can be written about it, and many pieces of it exist. Thirdly it is at once clear that both the Tanka prose article, and Tanka in English, are in need of considerable editing and wikifying. Fourthly, it is plain that there has been a dispute; please could everyone remember to remain civil. In this situation, without a great deal of study, the most I can say is that there is a prima facie case for an article on the subject; that many of the references seem to be appropriate; and that notability is at least close to being established. I would tend therefore to believe the article should be kept, though I'm happy to listen to further evidence, presented plainly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment - My concern is that the sources cited are not reliable, and do not adequately explain why "tanka prose" is appropriate terminology. They are not learned articles, and they discuss the term almost exclusively in relation to ancient Japanese literature, an area in which I am a specialist. The phrase "tanka prose" does not appear in any specialist literature on the subject, and I have already demonstrated how the sources cited are not reliable when it comes to Japanese literature. It appears etymologically closest to the term uta monogatari, which is why I initially moved that page there, but the user in question has insisted that it is closer to nikki bungaku. I think more evidence needs to be provided in order to justify this article's existence, and despite over three weeks of trying to locate or elicit reliable sources I have thus far been unsuccessful. It's most important, of course, to insure that no false information is put on Misplaced Pages, and the article in question was clearly created for that purpose . elvenscout742 (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment - The following observations are relevant to the proposed deletion of Tanka prose.
1) The article existed from 2008 until the present without significant alteration and without substantial objections being lodged toward its content or notability by anyone until done so by User Elvenscout742.
2) The article discusses a contemporary English-language literary form that is partly inspired by early Japanese literature but is independent of it; the writers of this form, by and large, are also practitioners of Tanka in English just as writers of Haibun, by and large, are also practitioners of Haiku in English.
3) Such articles as Haiku in English, Tanka in English and Haibun also discuss contemporary English-language literary forms partly inspired by Japanese literature but ultimately independent of it. Said articles cite as their sources, as does Tanka prose, items drawn predominately, if not exclusively, from the literary small press (whether print or online) and, in fact, they discuss some of the same authors as are discussed in Tanka prose. The user who has submitted this request for deletion has worked likewise on at least two of these same articles (Tanka in English and Haibun) without lodging any objection on their Talk Pages or elsewhere as to the notability of said subjects and without asserting that they represent original research; this latter circumstance suggests the application of a separate standard, by User Elvenscout742, for the article Tanka prose.
4) User Elvenscout742’s claim that the article “appears to have been substantially edited by only one user,” were it true, would be irrelevant to the issue at hand but this same user’s active editing role on the article, over the past few weeks, contradicts his own representation. To reconstruct the history of these edits, however, one would have to review the edit summaries of not only Tanka prose but of Uta monogatari as well. User Elvenscout742 redirected the original Tanka prose page to Uta monogatari on or about Sept 12 and the history of the edits for the original Tanka prose article, 2008 to present, are archived therein.
5) The judgments offered by User Elvenscout742, as regards the literary form and/or movement of Tanka prose in his proposal for deletion above, are apparently offered with bias, their goal being to discredit the article by painting the associated form/movement as “obscure,” “small,” “non-notable” and “minor.” User Elvenscout742 does not offer any insight into how he arrived at these conclusions and, indeed, elsewhere has not disguised his antipathy for the subject or for its participants. That no writer of tanka prose appears on the New York Times Bestseller List is conceded but the same might be said of English-language writers of haiku, of tanka, of haibun, of gogyoshi and, indeed, of writers of many other contemporary literary forms that have Misplaced Pages articles.
6) User Elvenscout742’s characterization of the term “tanka prose” as an “obscure neologism,” like his claims about the literary phenomenon it describes, reflects his personal opinion and nothing more. The term is clearly defined in the sources that the article cites and in the article in question. Critics and artists often coin new terms to discuss new literary phenomena; that a term is a “neologism” should not alone disqualify it from Misplaced Pages, particularly when the nomenclature, as in this case, has acceptance within the English-language tanka community. This term, which User Elvenscout742 elsewhere has described as “inherently oxymoronic,” parallels various well-known literary terms in construction, e.g., “prose poem,” “sanbunshi,” “haiku prose” or “haiku story” (see the writings of the Welsh poet Ken Jones), or “waka-prose complex” (see Jin’ichi Konishi, A History of Japanese Literature, Volume 2, p. 258). User Elvenscout742 redirected the original Tanka prose to his rewrite of the page as Uta monogatari; the same user translates “uta monogatari,” accurately enough, as “poem-tale”—an oxymoron whose construction mirrors that of “tanka prose.”
7) User Elvenscout742’s assertion that “when repeatedly prompted” this user “refused to cite reliable, secondary sources” is patently false. His request for sources touched upon that portion of the original article and of the rewrite that discussed the Japanese literary background. In the revised article here, citations from scholarly sources were provided for every summary offered of the Japanese background. However, User Elvenscout742, who admits that he has yet to consult any of these sources, promptly deleted the material in question and did so merely upon his imputing bad faith here to this user.
8) As evidence of User Elvenscout742’s idea of what it means to “request sources” from a fellow editor, I offer his entry here where he offers a laborious list of scholary and literary sources and concludes somewhat triumphantly: I have cited better-known and more widely available books written (or translated with introduction and notes) by both Konishi and McCullough, and no one has demonstrated that either of these authors have ever used the phrase "tanka prose" in their writings. Any more questions?
I offer two observations on the above. First, neither the article under discussion here nor the sources it cites claim that the term “tanka prose” was ever employed by ancient Japanese poets or by modern scholars of Japanese literature; the term refers to the contemporary English phenomena and so User Elvenscout742’s supposed debunking proves nothing, unless it can be said to demonstrate his inability or unwillingness to read with comprehension and without prejudice the subject article and its cited sources. Furthermore, while “tanka prose” may be fairly characterized as anachronistic when speaking of ancient and medieval Japanese literature, so too may such modern Japanese scholarly nomenclature as nikki bungaku or zuihitsu, concepts unknown to the early poets. Second, I wish to highlight the sneering rhetorical flourish of User Elvenscout742’s conclusion, “Any more questions?,” which is inconsistent with the civility due a fellow editor but rather carries the tone of a patrician addressing his menial. I draw attention to this because User Elvenscout742 alludes in his proposal above to the personal attacks that he believes he has been subject to.
9) User Elvenscout742, as late as Sept 26, was offering this user a compromise which would retain the current page that he now seeks to delete. In doing so, he did not raise the questions of notability or of original research that he now raises. It is fair to infer therefore, despite User Elvenscout742’s denials in his Comment above, that the fundamental problem is one regarding a dispute over content. This user on two occasions asked for time to review User Elvenscout742’s proposed compromise but, in each instance, before he could do so, User Elvenscout742 posted further demands and personal attacks.
10) The body of the article, as originally posted, numbered less than 700 words. I’ve been compelled, by User Elvenscout742’s innumerable postings on the Talk Pages of Uta monogatari and Tanka prose and by his countless edits, to devote several thousand words to this article’s defense in the past few weeks. His criticisms and objections are frequently shifting. This dialogue, if it may be so called, has been largely uninstructive and has become a hindrance to participation here nor do I believe that it represents the spirit of cooperation that is supposed to be a standard at Misplaced Pages.Tristan noir (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment - 1) That the article existed since 2008 is irrelevant, since your version of it from that time up until last month claimed to be about classical Japanese literature, and thus eluded deletion as a non-notable poetic movement for a long time. Your personal attack against me is irrelevant -- I removed your false claims to "tanka prose" existing in ancient Japan from the article, and you have tried to reinstate them several times in order to justify this article's existence.
2) Your views on what "tanka prose" means are irrelevant to this discussion, as you have thus far failed to add any reliable sources to justify the existence of the article. I have already pointed out that, unlike haibun, "tanka prose" has no Japanese equivalent and is inaccurate/oxymoronic as a term. The content of the haibun article may or may not be inappropriate, but references that justify the article's inclusion in Misplaced Pages do exist; such an argument has no place here, though.
3) Please see Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists for a discussion of why your above argument is invalid. The article at Tanka in English was started recently by me, mainly to keep material on modern English "tanka" from overrunning an article on Japanese literature, which it has almost nothing to do with. Haiku in English, whether or not reliable sources are already cited, has been discussed extensively in reliable, academic sources (one that happens to come to mind would be the chapter on haiku in Gideon Toury's 1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond). That Haibun is comparable to your "tanka prose" is ridiculous -- the former term has existed in Japanese academic circles for centuries, and there is no reasonable argument for the article's deletion.
4) The article, two days after you started it (during which time the only other edit was by a bot to remove a link you had inserted), was 4 paragraphs long . The article immediately before I removed contentious information and moved the page was 5 paragraphs long . The latter paragraph was a copyedit by one user . Every other edit by a user other than you was, in terms of overall article content, minor.
5) Please refrain from making personal attacks and ad hominem arguments here. The sources you have cited are non-notable, and most of them contain ridiculous claims about ancient Japanese origin.
6) The term is a neologism. It has never appeared outside of the obscure sources you cite. You have demonstrated elsewhere that you do not understand Japanese -- the term uta monogatari is the closest Japanese equivalent to your "tanka prose", as uta is synonymous with tanka and monogatari is the most prominent classical Japanese word for a prose narrative. The fact that uta monogatari do not exclusively feature "tanka", per se, is irrelevant, as both your article and your sources include the Kojiki and the Man'yōshū under this blanket term, which is inaccurate given the content of those works (tanka is one of the numerous genres of poetry appearing in both).
7) The sources you cited were taken out of context. They do not use the phrase "tanka prose" once. I asked you several times ( ) to cite reliable sources that justify the use of the phrase "tanka prose" in relation to classical Japanese literature, or refrain from discussing classical Japanese literature out-of-context. You ignored me each time, instead making repeated personal attacks, and continuing to cite irrelevant sources.
8) You used weasel words in your article, so as to very strongly imply that these reliable sources used the phrase "tanka prose" in reference to classical Japanese literature. You did this in clear violation of our previous compromise. I also need to point out here that I proposed a compromise with you so that I could clear Misplaced Pages of ridiculous claims about my area of expertise, and you and I could go on editing without interrupting each other. I did not, however, admit at any time that "tanka prose" merited a Misplaced Pages article. I just didn't want to get involved in a dispute. Your use of the word "sneering" in reference to my comment is an uncivil personal attack, and your comment is entirely irrelevant to this deletion debate. You have made similar irrelevant comments throughout our previous disputes. My criticizing your edits to an article, and pointing out specific inaccuracies in the sources you cite, are not personal attacks. Neither is my citing of valid, reliable, academic sources. Your consistently ignoring the substance of my comments to make ad hominem attacks, however, is in direct violation of Misplaced Pages policy, and is irrelevant to the current discussion. Even if you consider my wording to be aggressive or uncivil (I have been restrained in my critiques, though, unlike you), at least I have consistently focused on article-content. Also, nikki bungaku and zuihitsu, regardless of their specific etymologies, are established terms used in hundreds or reliable sources on classical Japanese literature.
9) This is another irrelevant personal attack. As stated above, at the time I offered you the compromise (well over two weeks ago), I was not actually doing so because I believe your article has a place on Misplaced Pages. I was deliberately ignoring Misplaced Pages policy on notability and original research, so as to avoid a dispute. Your article on "tanka prose" does not belong on Misplaced Pages, but I wouldn't really care, if it didn't make ridiculous, bizarre claims about Japanese literature.
10) Your ad hominem remark is duly noted. The overwhelmingly majority of your "thousands of words" have been irrelevant to the topic at hand, and have been based largely on ad hominem arguments and your opinion that I am uncivil. Last time you made any kind of substantial argument related to content was here, and that comment was riddled with mistakes and misrepresentations. Comments about how much personal effort one has put into an article or a debate are irrelevant, but I think it's safe to say that I have a better case than you do here, as well. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. AfD's in the end are simple, you just need two independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in a non-trivial manner. I went through all the sources and found the following:
  • Preminger, Alex and Brogan, T.V.F. The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993, p. 981. I went to Amazon and did a "Look Inside" search and it came back with 0 hits for "Tanka prose". Am I missing something?
  • Woodward, Jeffrey, Ed. The Tanka Prose Anthology. Baltimore, MD: Modern English Tanka Press, 2008, pp. 13-14 - this is self-published on LuLu (can't link direct due to LuLu blacklist) and thus it fails WP:RS. The journal Modern English Tanka is also self-published.
  • "Tarlton, Charles" - published in Haibun Today which is a journal published by.. "Woodward, Jeffrey" (self-published), not a RS.
  • The article by "Everett, Claire" in Atlas Poetica is an interview with "Woodward, Jeffrey", who wrote the self-published material above.
  • "Lucky, Bob" in Atlas Poetica - Independent author, independent source (I believe). Discusses tanka prose and community in depth.
  • These two sources in the ref section: Santa Fe, Simply Haiku - they are both "Woodward, Jeffrey" articles. Simply Haiku is another interview with Woodward; Santa Fe is an edition with Woodward as guest editor.
  • Source by "Goldstein, Sanford" and "Smyth, Florida Watts". These books were published before the term Tanka prose existed or was in common use (I believe). It appears to be cites to poems the article is considering as Tanka prose, appears to be possible Original Research.
  • Sources by "Reichhold, Jane", "Kimmel, Larry" and "Ward, Linda Jeannette". These appear to be links to some poets but unclear if these sources use the term "Tanka prose" or more importantly establish the notability of the term with significant discussion of the term.
  • Based on the above, the "Lucky, Bob" Atlas Poetica article seems to be the strongest for AfD purposes. I'm concerned by the vast number of sources that come back to "Woodward, Jeffrey" in one way or another, who is a self-publisher, and the lack of academic sourcing. It has the appearance of an insular genre. That is OK but is it notable? If we discard all the Woodward-connected sources as being 1. self-published or 2. interviews (self-created content) or 3. guest editor (self-published), what is left is the "Lucky, Bob" article, which is not enough for a Keep. If however we keep some of the Woodward articles, such as the two interviews and the guest editor, it might be enough for a Weak Keep. My leaning is to Weak Delete because if you discard the Woodward-connected sources, there isn't much left, which is a sign of lack of notability beyond the publications of a single person. I did a cross-database search of over 50 commercial databases (JSTOR, newspaper archives, GALE records, etc..) and came up with 0 hits on Tanka prose. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
Claire Everett is the "Tanka Prose Editor" of Woodward's Haibun Today, if that means anything. Also, the publication that ran the interview in question was Atlas Poetica, which is self-published by D. Garrison. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Preminger and Brogan are cited in reference to the unrelated term "prosimetra". Their not using the phrase "tanka prose" makes sense, since they also appear to predate the coining of the term. You're not missing anything. ;-)
Also, Lucky is not an independent source. Of the ten references he gives, six were written or edited by Woodward, two are interviews with Woodward, and one is written by Patricia Prime, one of the interviewers. The last one is an article in German that doesn't use the phrase "tanka prose" or the corresponding German "Tankaprosa" once. Except in the references -- because it cites the English Misplaced Pages article. In any case Lucky and most of his sources are published by Modern English Tanka Press, a self-published work by one D. Garrison. Even if Lucky himself is not personally linked with Woodward, he is hardly an independent source. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Self-published? – I want to address User Green Cardamom’s comments about the article’s sources and, in particular, his/her determination that certain of the sources were “self-published.” I was surprised by this statement and so I reviewed WP:SPS to determine if “self-published,” within Misplaced Pages, had a meaning other than that of common acceptance. I did not find that it did, for the guideline there states: “Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media ... are largely not acceptable.” The OED defines a self-published author as one who has “published their work independently and at their own expense.” If I turn to Self-publishing, I read that it “is the publication of any book or other media by the author of the work....” It would seem that WP:SPS, the OED and Self-publishing agree; all place emphasis upon an author paying to have his work published or upon an author, without intervention of a second party, printing his own work.
Green Cardamom wrote: “Woodward, Jeffrey, Ed. The Tanka Prose Anthology. Baltimore, MD: Modern English Tanka Press, 2008, pp. 13-14 - this is self-published on LuLu ...and thus it fails WP:RS. The journal Modern English Tanka is also self-published.” He/she (I’ll presume “he” for ease of future reference) is calling into question three items here: the two cited articles by Woodward and the anthology edited by the same author. He remarks that these works are “self-published on Lulu.” I’m not certain how this conclusion was arrived at but perhaps I can offer some clarifications. Lulu is a print on demand supplier, like Lightning Source, CreateSpace, Replica Books and various others. From Print on demand: (POD) “is a printing technology and business process in which new copies of a book (or other document) are not printed until an order has been received.... Many traditional small presses have replaced their traditional printing equipment with POD equipment or contract their printing out to POD service providers. Many academic publishers, including university presses, use POD services to maintain a large backlist…. Larger publishers may use POD in special circumstances, such as reprinting older titles that are out of print or for performing test marketing.” The point to be made here, however, is that use of a POD supplier cannot invariably be equated with self-publishing. Many literary, university and commercial houses now employ POD.
The Tanka Prose Anthology was published by MET Press of Baltimore. This is a small literary press owned and operated by Denis Garrison, a well-known educator and writer of haiku and tanka. The publisher is not a vanity press; his backlist includes titles by such widely-read poets as Michael McClintock, Alexis Rotella and James Tipton as well as works by professional translators of Japanese poetry (Sanford Goldstein and Amelia Fielden), and even a book by Japanese literary scholar Michael F. Marra. His list also includes various anthologies, The Tanka Prose Anthology among them. Denis Garrison was also editor and publisher of the quarterly journal Modern English Tanka (2006-2009). That journal, while printed via Lulu, was distributed, like MET books, via many channels and not solely through Lulu distribution.
The relevant point, however, is this. An author who successfully submits an essay or poem to a literary journal that is edited by a second party is not self-published unless such a journal were to stipulate that acceptance of that author’s work required payment of a fee (vanity publishing). The same can be said for a book mss. that is submitted to a small literary press; Author X, upon acceptance of his mss. by Publisher B, cannot be reasonably described as self-published unless, again, a fee is involved. Therefore, a proposal to discard, upon the grounds of self-publication, the two Woodward essays published in Modern English Tanka or the Tanka Prose Anthology as published by MET Press has no proper foundation. On the same grounds, designating the Tarlton essay or the Everett interview as self-published is objectionable; contributors to Haibun Today, Atlas Poetica or the other journals mentioned by Green Cardamom do not pay to have their works published; they submit them to a second party (editor) who is free to accept or reject the same.
I apologize for having to go on at such length about this matter. Some final minor points of clarification for Green Cardamom: 1) the citation from Preminger & Brogan is for the entry in the New Princeton to “prosimetrum,” i.e., any composition that combines prose and verse; 2) citations to Goldstein, Smyth, Reichhold, Kimmel and Ward were merely historical citations to direct the reader to earlier published examples of tanka prose; I felt it necessary to offer the references lest anyone accuse me of making up said poets and/or their writings.Tristan noir (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Again I must point out to you that Goldstein and so on, just like the ancient Japanese sources you claim as "tanka prose", can only be called by that name on Misplaced Pages if they have been so-called in reliable secondary sources. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Response We've made progress. Tristan noir has established which sources (he believes) creates notability and which do not. An updated list follows, each source given a number.
  • (1) All Jeffrey Woodward sources. According to WP:NOTE: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."
  • (2) Lucky, Bob (Editor). Atlas Poetica Special Feature: 25 Tanka Prose (July 2011) (the other Bob Lucky source is a Woodward source)
  • (3) Prime, Patricia. “Irresistible Constructions: a tanka prose essay,” Modern English Tanka V3, N1
Tristan noir, can you confirm? I could not find any more, most sources fall under Source (1) which is counted as a single source since they are all related to Woodward: interviews, journals, or articles by Woodward. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Response: Confirmed, Green Cardamom, with the possible exception (or addition) of the Ingrid Kunschke item at TankaNetz. Though not cited in the article as it now stands, there are also independent book reviews of The Tanka Prose Anthology available in the English-language tanka & haiku press, e.g., one in Ribbons (the Tanka Society of America's journal), another in Simply Haiku, another, I believe, at the Haiku Oz site (Haiku Society of Australia), and perhaps others.Tristan noir (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: Independent references to The Tanka Prose Anthology:
Nominated by Grace Cavalieri, host of public radio’s “The Poet and the Poem from The Library of Congress,” for Best Books for Winter Reading, 2008
Reviews of the anthology online:
1. J. Harpeng, Haiku Oz: The Australian Haiku Society (Oct. 14, 2008)
2. Robert Wilson, Simply Haiku V6, N4 (Winter 2008)
3. Jane Reichhold, Lynx XXIV:1 (Feb. 2009)
4. Ingrid Kunschke, TankaNetz (Oct. 2008)
Reviews of the anthology in print only:
5. Tony Beyer, Kokako 10 (NZ: April 2009), pp. 51-53
6. M. Kei, Ribbons: Tanka Society of America Journal V4, N4 (Winter 2008), pp. 44-47Tristan noir (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment - The unreliable, self-published material cited in this article having been reviewed in equally non-notable, self-published works does not prove that the subject is notable. The book itself having been nominated for an award does not make the book a reliable source of information. No one has claimed that the book itself does not exist -- I made it clear that I have read portions of it here. The problem is that the term existing in one author's works and the works of those closely attached to them, does not mean it should get its own Misplaced Pages article. Also, the fact that the article cited the book over two weeks before the book was published clearly indicates a conflict of interest. (The publisher's website, at /shop/jeffrey-woodward-ed/the-tanka-prose-anthology/paperback/product-3493914.html with lulu.com before it gives the date as 5 September 2008.) elvenscout742 (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree - those are "references" for the book. But this discussion is about Tanka prose, not The Tanka Prose Anthology (book). If you want to argue the book itself meets WP:NBOOK then you should have that discussion at WP:AFC, though I would point out that 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all blog-style self-published websites and might not be considered reliable sources. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Response Tristan, the problem with those reviews is they refer back to Woodward, they are not independently discussing tanka prose but simply review Woodward's book on it. The spirit of the Notability rule is that you need two sources that are not from the same person, to avoid precisely this problem where a single prolific person is able to establish notability. That is why we have the rule for two sources from different people. Those book reviews should group into Source (1) with the rest of Woodward, for notability purposes. I'll wait to hear your response before moving on, as we need to establish this concept. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
Comment: Understood, Green Cardamom, and fair enough, though the independent reviews do indicate acceptance of the term “tanka prose” within the literary community in question, one point-of-contention here as is, unfortunately, the novel definition of self-publishing that seems to be a shared obsessive theme on the part of two of the participants in this discussion.Tristan noir (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Response The above is a needless and irrelevant personal attack. The reviews do not show a prevalence of the phrase "tanka prose" in the literary community. At least one of them spells it "tanka-prose" (hyphenated), differing from Woodward's usage. And again, they only demonstrate the notability of the book, if even that -- they do not justify the terminology in the book. Also, no one has yet explained how the article in question cited a book by Woodward that had not been published yet. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow, yet another WP:SPA who, upon finally realising he has no valid argument, resorts to personal attacks. I'm shocked. It's such an original strategy - I've only seen it 148,976,254 times before! Ha ha. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Respond Tristan noir. Ok I have your acceptance on that point so here is the updated list of four possible sources, two of which are needed to meet the notability guidelines:
According to WP:NOTE they need to be 1. "Significant coverage" 2. "Reliable" 3. "Secondary Sources" 4. "Independent of the subject" -- Can you confirm that there are no missing sources and you agree about the NOTE requirements? Basically it looks like we have a matrix of 16 decisions: 4 sources x 4 requirements. For example, referencing 4.4, it would be about Ingrid Kuschke's independence of the subject. So we can say that 4.4 is OK there is no problem there. 4.3 is OK, it is a secondary source. 4.2 - Contention since the source doesn't recognize tanka prose as a genre, just uses the words tanka and prose. 4.1 is probably OK. Would you agree with this assessment? Green Cardamom (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Response: I understand & agree, Cardamom, about the NOTE requirements. Your assessment of the Kunschke item seems fair. You asked if there were other missing sources. I haven't been able to consult it yet but User Warden offered another source (see below), previously unknown to me, where he wrote: The paper A History of Tanka in English uses the phrase more than once, e.g. "journals devoted to tanka prose and haibun appeared in the early 21st century". That item also should be taken under consideration.Tristan noir (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
According to Misplaced Pages's definition of a source, the publisher of a work counts as a source. By this definition, 1, 2 and 3 all coming from the same publisher (Garrison/METPress) could also affect their reliability. Prime and Woodward have clearly been in direct contact with each other on numerous occasions, given the interviews cited, and Lucky has written numerous times for this same publisher (Woodward is also his principle/only source). elvenscout742 (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
4.1 is also problematic, for the same reason as 4.2. The article discusses the genres of uta monogatari, nikki and tsukuri-monogatari (The Tale of Genji), all of which are notable, independent genres, and are discussed elsewhere on English Misplaced Pages. The article does not give significant coverage (any coverage, except a link to this Misplaced Pages article) to the tanka prose movement. Therefore, claiming the article is a discussion of "tanka prose" would be original research. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
You are correct the Contention is really centered on 4.1 .. if 4 is a reliable source or not almost doesn't matter since 4.1 is a problem. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The key point to consider seems to be this: the article/argument in the article's defense has used external, apparently reliable sources, but these sources are general discussions of prosimetra, particularly classical Japanese prosimetra. They do not use the phrase "tanka prose" once, because it is a neologism apparently coined after the independent sources were published. There are, of course, hundreds of reliable sources that discuss Japanese prosimetra, such as uta monogatari and nikki, and I have pointed to them already. Discussion of these works does have a place in Misplaced Pages, but those places already exist in other articles. 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2 and 3.3 all fail, it seems. The neologism "tanka prose" appears exclusively in a single source, being the publisher MET Press, apparently a non-academic, unreliable source that publishes through Lulu. I say they are non-academic, since they seem to routinely ignore the vast majority of Japanese scholarship. Their authors, in particular Woodward (who is still the only true source of information in the article), have a habit of making ridiculous gaffes in their discussion of "tanka prose in classical Japanese literature". I have listed just a few of them here. Keene (1999), Konishi (1993), as well as virtually all general works on classical Japanese poetry contradict Woodward and the other authors on numerous key points. The other "authors", though, all seem to get their information from Woodward. They all seem to ignore the etymology of the word tanka, which is an adjective-noun compound already, and has never been combined with other words to form longer compounds. The synonymous term uta has, but they are apparently not aware of this. There seems to be no significant editorial oversight to prevent errors such as these from creeping into MET Press's publications. MET Press only publishing through Lulu is explained by this -- it would be difficult for the works they produce to be published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals, because of their tendency to make glaring errors, reliance on a single author-source (who also publishes through MET Press/Lulu) and tendency to dismiss legitimate historical scholarship in their coinage of new terms. elvenscout742 (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Another point that I appear to have largely neglected up until now: Tristan noir claims that neither his article nor any of his sources claim tanka prose existed in ancient Japan. An examination of the editor's blurb for The Tanka Prose Anthology on Lulu's website clearly disproves the latter point: The Tanka Prose Anthology is vital evidence of the first flowering in English of an ancient Japanese genre whether the time is contemporary and presently unfolding or archaic and retrospective, the revival of the ancient medium of tanka prose has proven equal to the immediate task. This first-of-its-kind collection draws upon the work of nineteen poets from eight different countries. The introduction offers a detailed survey of the genre’s history and of its evolving forms while an annotated bibliography directs the reader to related literature. Why is tanka prose so novel? Because it is so old. The introduction, which "offers a detailed survey of the genre's history", claims the Kojiki and the Man'yōshū as the earliest examples of tanka prose (Woodward 2008, p.10). The Kojiki is not a work of prose fiction -- it was written as a quasi-historical document/propaganda piece in favour of the imperial family's claim to absolute dominance of Japan, and quotes old folk songs from around the country to support its claims (from B.H. Chamberlain's translation of the Kojiki). The Man'yōshū, similarly, is not a unified work of prose fiction. It is a poetry anthology, containing poems composed over several centuries, and while its compilation remains mysterious, it was probably compiled by numerous people over several decades (from Keene, 1999). The original version of the article before I edited it clearly made similar claims , and Tristan noir's rewrite did as well . The rewrite cited "McCullough" and "Konishi/Miner" to justify this, but neither of those sources use the phrase "tanka prose", because no reputable source on Japanese literature does. elvenscout742 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - without getting into a long-winded argument about self-published sources, Lulu is effectively a vanity publisher - calling it a print-on-demand publisher might still be accurate but it comes down to this; I can write a book, send it to Lulu and have it published without any further editorial oversight, fact-checking or clearance. MET Press, though it benefits from the addition of someone in the middle to "vet" content, publishes via Lulu. I accept this is not the same as someone who simply writes whatever they like and publishes it, but it is also not the same as having something published by, say, the Cambridge University Press. I don't think it "invalidates" the sources, per se, but I also think we need additional sources to help verify the claims from the notionally self-published ones.
But that's not my biggest concern - my biggest concern is that the same person is, in effect, responsible for 16 of the 19 "references" for the article. Each is either his own commentary (including in non-RS blogs) or his publication of other people's work via his "journal" (still, really, also a blog - just published as a "journal"). There also seems to be some serious WP:OWN issues coming from one particular WP:SPA (the creator of the article). Given the regularity with which that WP:SPA likes to cite the same single source over and over again (and given the remarkable similarity between the writing style of the article and that of the blogs in question), one has to conclude that there are some serious WP:COI issues that need resolving. If the two are not one in the same then I can only conclude they are very, very closely connected. This essay comes to mind, as does WP:OWNSITE.
Having done a search, the same single-origin sources keep coming up. I couldn't find a single unrelated source that gives the subject significant coverage. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC).
  • Keep/merge There is too much emphasis in this discussion upon the title of the article, tanka prose. This is not a neologism as both of these words are well-established. It should be considered as a descriptive phrase and we should just then explore whether there is a better phrase to describe the topic. As an example, see the source Prosimetrum: Crosscultural Perspectives on Narrative in Prose and Verse. This contains chapters with titles such as The Prosimetric Form in the Chinese Literary Tradition and Combinations of Poetry and Prose in Classical Japanese Narrative. The page in question is about a narrow slice of this general topic of poetry/prose combination. As the article prosimetrum is currently quite stubby, we should preserve the current content to help fertilise and develop it. When we have more content about the way that poetry and prose are combined in various literary traditions, then we will be able to assess and balance it it, per WP:UNDUE. But while we are still working with early drafts, it seems best to be tolerant of enthusiastic efforts like this. 百花齊放，百家爭鳴 — "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend." Warden (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
Comment - The problem is entirely based in the terminology. The historically attested material (the material discussed in the McCullough article you refer to) is already discussed elsewhere. Merging this content into another article has already been attempted, but the WP:SPA involved in this dispute is intent on the use of a particular terminology, but this terminology does not appear in any reputable literature. It is also not accurate, as "tanka" refers exclusively to modern literature/a specific genre of Man'yōshū poetry. Therefore, discussion of the title is all that really matters. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Title changes are made using the move function not the delete function. And I have found a counter-example to your claim that this terminology does not appear in any reputable literature. The paper A History of Tanka in English uses the phrase more than once, e.g. "journals devoted to tanka prose and haibun appeared in the early 21st century". Warden (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • While that might be correct, that paper isn't a great example (in my opinion) - it's published by the same small group of people at MET Press who are responsible for almost all of the existing "references" and it cites many of those in that same small group of people. As far as I can tell, there is a small group of people (very small) who have (in essence) invented a particular style or phrase not widely recognised by others and are now citing themselves to softly WP:PROMO their idea using Misplaced Pages. I still think there might be some serious WP:OR going on. I don't think merging or renaming would be appropriate anyway - except for the single-origin-style references in the article, there seems to be no other sources to support the use of the term in any "widespread" sense so a merge into another article might become a WP:WEIGHT issue. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I need to point out again, in addition to Stalwart's remark, that many of these sources, as well as both pre-edit versions of the Misplaced Pages article, claim (rather sloppily) that the term encompasses almost all of ancient and medieval Japanese literature. Hundreds of reliable sources on this area do exist, and it appears none of them have ever used the term. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The source you cite is self-published by the same individual who published most of the other sources. It is clear that the authors of most of these sources know nothing about the history of Japanese literature. Also, please examine the edit history of the page. I tried to move the article twice ( and ) to what seemed like its proper location. A merge into either uta monogatari or nikki bungaku would be fine with me, as long as no false/misleading information is placed in those articles, link overkill/advertising is kept to a minimum. But the fact is that the single-purpose account that created the page appears unwilling to settle for anything less than a full article devoted to this topic, complete with numerous links to the websites of this small group of personally-connected authors in question. In addition, no independent sources that use this terminology have shown up, and none ever will, because the term is inaccurate. Of the hundreds of reliable/independent books and journals, magazines, newspapers, etc. that discuss tanka, and also discuss combinations of tanka and prose, none have used this term. Based on the history of what has gone on on the talk pages of this article and uta monogatari, it should be obvious that both the creator of this article and the other SPA who formed a tag team have a conflict of interest. Without speculating on the real-world identity of the users in question (there is evidence in their comments on the talk pages, though), their loading the pages Tanka in English, Tanka prose and Haibun with largely irrelevant external links should make this clear. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • In re User Elvenscout742’s allegation immediately above as to “the creator of this article” forming “a tag team,” I refer the other participants here to a review of the close coordination in timing, tone and content of the postings by User Elvenscout742 and User Stalwart111.Tristan noir (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Response That is a personal attack and a ridiculous claim. Stalwart and I have never dealt with each other before this discussion. We just happen to both agree that the sources cited for this article are extremely shaky, and the article seems to have been created as a promotion tool. Your calling in an external WP:SPA who you clearly know in the real world, solely in order to make personal attacks against me in the previous dispute was a Misplaced Pages:Tag team. This is a deletion discussion. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • @Tristan noir - Wow, really? You're going to resort to sock-puppetry allegations? You do understand that regular edit-conflicts are actually an argument against sock-puppetry because the two users must be logged-in at the same time (impossible if you are editing with two accounts from the same computer). Besides the fact that accusations like that are borderline harassment, they are also not very clever without some research. For a start - I am based in Australia (and say so regularly) and I clearly do not speak Japanese (which the other user does). The tone is the same because you are obviously mistaken and we are both making that point. Another user has done the same. But if you really want to test your luck, go and open a WP:POINTY case at WP:SPI - more than happy to respond. LOL. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
User: Stalwart111 and I also both have extensive edit histories, that as far as I know have never crossed over with each other, making sock-puppetry almost impossible. Also, when I accidentally posted a comment from a second account in the past, I immediately declared it. Both myself and Stalwart are established Wikipedians with a vested interest in not breaking those kind of rules. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Self-publishing? Again? -- In fairness, I'd best point out that MET Press, “self-publisher” of The Tanka Prose Anthology, was also the vehicle through which Professor Michael F. Marra “self-published” his A Poetic Guide to an Ancient Capital: Aizu Yaichi and the City of Nara (2009) and Professor Sanford Goldstein (translator of Shiki, Akiko, Takuboku, and Mokichi) “self-published” his Four Decades on My Tanka Road (2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristan noir (talk • contribs) 04:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Reputable authors occasionally using self-publishing resources to publish material without the hassle of going through editors and so on, does not mean that it is not self-publishing, nor does it mean that all sources published by MET Press are reliable. The fact that you are now referring to those works here is evidence that, if anything, MET Press must have been all too happy to publish those works. Those authors' notable works all went through established, reputable publishers, many of which (universities) would be unlikely to publish original works of fiction, even by respected authors. Your appeal to authority is, however, completely irrelevant to this discussion, however. If you want to create an article on Marra or his work, go right ahead. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said above, I don't think it "invalidates" the sources, per se, but I also think we need additional sources to help verify the claims from the notionally self-published ones. At the moment we have three "sources" that are not directly from the one single source and those aren't great. WP:SPS is pretty clear about what is appropriate and what is not. We can use self-published sources if the person publishing them is considered an expert in their field who has been cited as an expert in other independent, reliable sources. But even those are line-ball cases. The fact that the "publisher" has published works for other people is really quite irrelevant. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Woodward clearly is not an expert on Japanese literature, at least. His academic background (according to the MET Press website) is in linguistics and political theory, and his writings have consistently contained egregious errors regarding the history of tanka. He misspelled the names of important tanka poets in ancient Japan ("Ariwara no Narihara", "Izumi Shikubu") , he thought the Hyakunin Isshu (a 13th century work and the most widely-studied classical poetic work in Japan) predated the Kokinshū (a tenth century work and the first imperial anthology) , etc., etc.. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolution

I took the liberty of collapsing some of the above content - especially the sections that degenerated into personal attacks. My aim was not to remove particular points or content or remove anyone's contribution to the discussion. I have tried to keep those paragraphs that provided a primary / initial opinion un-hidden. The content remains in place - it was not deleted. Be assured - closing admins will read all the content, including collapsed material. My aim, in good faith, was to focus everyone's attention on the primary issue (as summarised by Green Cardamom) - that of the sources provided in support of the article. If you feel your contribution has been unfairly or inaccurately collapsed, please either move my collapse templates or raise it with me - I will happily move them. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Hey I'm concerned the accusations of COI, SPA, SOCK could derail the AfD, such as a closure with "no consensus" because of unresolved disputes unrelated to AfD. I suggest ignoring accusations by the other party (beyond a single response), or opening appropriate Noticeboard reports to pursue it (COI is not inherently a bad thing, even if proven, but accusing someone of it during content disputes can be a problem). AfD is about finding two independent reliable sources, is mostly what the closing admin will be looking for. We've identified 4 sources above and need to go through them with the 4 points of WP:NOTE including rationales for why they do or do-not comply. --Green Cardamom (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • (1) All Jeffrey Woodward sources (including book reviews). According to WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."
Even counted as one source, I can't see how these would be considered independent. They are all essentially by the same person who has, for all intents and purposes, "invented" the style in question. A good portion of them are self-published and (as I have said above), while that doesn't invalidate them, no-one seems to be able to find reliable secondary sources to back them up. On balance, I think these should be considered primary sources, at best. Fails 1.3 and 1.4 of your matrix. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a complex source since there is a variety of items including Woodward-self-published books, Woodward interviews published in other journals, book reviews of Woodward publications. For the purposes of notability, all of the references to 'tanka prose' are the end product of Woodward (expressed directly by him or repeated by others in credit to him or through his publishing). Woodward is not independent of tanka prose, rather central to it. Thus as a group it fails 1.4 (independence). The sources individually may pass or fail different notability criteria but too complex to untangle since they all fail 1.4. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
You can call a white dog black as often as you like but the dog will still be white. POD, like old-fashioned job printing, is a manufacturing process; both are for-hire contractors to commercial and small press literary houses, to institutions (universities) and self-published individuals. The test of self-publishing, as common definition and the Misplaced Pages guidelines agree, is whether or not the author directly pays a second party to publish his work. A book or article that is not self-published follows this pattern: Author A submits to editor/publisher B who (without a fee from the author) accepts and contracts the printing service to POD/Jobprinter C. This pattern applies to Random House, Princeton University and to MET Press (as well as its journal, Modern English Tanka). The concerted effort to marginalize the writings here discussed as self-published, despite plain evidence to the contrary, is unsettling. If you were to take this discussion outside of its present cloistered confines and place it, say, at a PEN International Congress, an Independent Book Publishers Association Conference or a Council of Literary Magazines and Presses Conference, the remarks made here with respect to self-publishing would be met with incredulity, if not open laughter.
I’ll also have to take issue with Stalwart’s assertion that the source being discussed here “invented" the style in question. We’re not dealing with a literary style, first, but with a literary form; the many practitioners of the form in question have individual styles. The larger point, however, is this silly claim that the form in question was one person’s invention. Like the somewhat desperate recitation of the mantra self-publishing, the facts are simply not in accord with Stalwart’s assertion. If Woodward invented anything, it was not a literary form but a descriptive phrase to identify it. This is clear from his “Introduction” to the Tanka Prose Anthology: “Japanese criticism, ancient and modern, offers no comprehensive term that might encompass the many forms and styles that the wedding of tanka and prose admits. Instead, the terminology employed in the scholarly literature is form-specific, addressing not the genus but the individual species…. The first problem to address in defining tanka prose…is nomenclature. Whereas Japanese waka practice and literary criticism provide no precedent, the analogy of tanka plus prose to the latter development of haibun does. The term haibun, when applied to a literary composition, most commonly signifies haiku plus prose “written in the spirit of haiku.” Haiku prose or haikai prose would be an apt English equivalent of the Japanese word, haibun. Upon the same grounds, tanka prose becomes a reasonable term to apply to literary specimens that incorporate tanka plus prose….” That the form precedes his coined term is clear from the independently published record; the article here proposed for deletion and the anthology present numerous works that pre-date the Woodward source and that were published wholly independent of him. For these reasons, I disagree with the assessment of Stalwart and Green Cardamom that this source fails 1.3 and 1.4.Tristan noir (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, most of the sources cited for this work come directly from Misplaced Pages (note WP:WINARS), but more specifically are the same Woodward "references" above. Aside from the fact that copy-pasting references from WP wouldn't be considered particularly scholarly, the site in question is essentially a blog with "guest editors" comprised mostly of the same small group of people cited by Woodward. For all of those reasons I contend this isn't really a reliable source. Fails 2.2 and 2.4 of your matrix. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Has some independence but Lucky Bob also has connections to Woodward. According to WP:GNG (footnote #4): "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." Concerned with reliable source it's uncertain what vetting if any was done for this paper. Since 'literary genre' is a scholarly topic we can expect to have at least some "reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Fail 2.2 and 2.4 -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, before being able to discuss notability, I’m called upon, by the preceding comments, to first address points of misapprehension or misrepresentation of fact. Stalwart states unequivocally that (a) the site in question is essentially a blog, and (b) that it has “guest editors” comprised mostly of the same small group of people cited by Woodward. The site, in fact, is the online home of a hardcopy journal, Atlas Poetica. The guest editors are independent of the journal proper and they edit only those special features found here. I made a quick count and found that 12 guest editors are listed there. Most can be demonstrated to have little or no connection with this first source.
Cardamom’s comments raise two other problems. He insists that literary genre is a scholarly topic which, indeed, it is. But genre is first and foremost a literary topic, like questions of literary form, and the writers of said forms, and not scholars, are the first persons to encounter this topic and to struggle with its definition. I say this to insist upon what I believe is an important point: that in discussions of living or contemporary literature, as over-and-against historical literature, those writers engaged in the form are the first witnesses and first scholars, if you will. The user who proposed the article on tanka prose for deletion consistently confounded these matters, insisting upon judging a modern English literary phenomenon by criteria drawn from Japanese scholarship. Writing communities, whether or not scholars are alive to the fact, tend to be relatively small, so much so that most parties, large and small, have some acquaintance. One might look only to the history of American poetry, for example, and review the complex of personal relationships between Ezra Pound, William Carlos Williams, Marianne Moore, and H.D. or the similar web later between members of the Beat Generation. For these reasons, it should not be surprising that writers who share common goals, such as those involved in tanka prose, may know each other just as do (and I apologize for the shocking comparison) the fellow professors of a university’s English Department. I offer these remarks to explain why I believe that Cardamom’s citation of WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP are inaccurately applied in this instance. Therefore, I dissent from the opinion of Stalwart and Cardamom above and assert that the source passes muster of 2.2 and 2.4.Tristan noir (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The site in question is a self-published blog and the author's own introduction to the site effectively says as much (though in German - Google translate is not great but it's enough to get the gist). It's certainly not a scholarly journal in the technical form of a blog - it's a stock-standard, my-thoughts-for-the-day type blog. I would contend it probably passes 2.4 but fails 2.2 of your matrix and possibly 2.1 given the term "Tanka prose" seems to be used speculatively, in the sense that even the writer doesn't seem to accept that the term is commonplace, just that it has been used. But that part is in English (not the author's native German) so I'm hesitant to over-interpret the meaning. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I would be more inclined to say it fails 3.4 as well. The author, Prime, has interviewed Woodward on several occasions, and Modern English Tanka comes from the same publisher as all the other sources. In order for the term to be truly notable, it should probably need to have been discussed in independent works that do not come from one publisher alone. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it might fail 2.4 because in the paper Patricia mentions a connection to Woodward. It also fails 2.2 since it's not academically vetted and we are dealing with a scholarly topic (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Not every source must be strictly academic but we need at least some evidence of the genre's acceptance in the academic world. 2.1 might also be a problem but I will leave that open. So fails 2.2, 2.4 and maybe 2.1-- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Stalwart, above, seems to have confused the Kunschke source in German below and the Prime article in Modern English Tanka here under discussion. That is the only sense I could make of his statement that the PDF version of a printed journal (MET) was a blog. Again, we face the same misrepresentation of fact, viz., that an article by Author A accepted by Editor B is somehow self-published and thereby disqualified; that the author Prime is acquainted with the first source (Elvenscout goes so far as to claim that she has interviewed Woodward on several occasions; one occasion is cited in the references to the article; I challenge E. to offer evidence to support his hyperbole) and is thereby disqualified. And we have again what I take to be an unreasonable expectation, that is, that a literary topic’s proper authority is academic scholarship as over-and-against the writings of poets and literary critics. It should be obvious, from my remarks, that I’m in the minority and dissent from the above opinions on the issue of notability.Tristan noir (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Has been analysed above and I agree it probably fails 4.1 and 4.2. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussed above. Fails 4.1 -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me including this in your matrix given the original author has contended that it should also be considered which I think is only fair (I have included it as number 5, so the matrix extends to 5.1, 5.2... etc). As I noted when this "source" was original put forward, it is published by the same people as those who publish a good number of the sources in the "Woodward" category 1. I would contend on that basis that it fails 5.4 of your matrix. I would contend it notionally fails 5.2 given it is published (via the same self-publishing house as many of Woodward sources) by the same person responsible for publishing source 2 - Lucky was writing for Kei's blog as a "guest editor". We know the author in question is a blogger who, in this instance, has turned his hand to writing a slightly-more-scholarly style of essay, published by the same group as other "sources", citing many of the same small group of "authors". On balance, I would contend it fails 5.2 and 5.4. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Source has some independence but also connections to Woodward. According to WP:GNG (footnote #4): "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." It also has the same issue of reliability since this is an academic topic and there is no clear scholarly vetting process through peer review or submission to "well-regarded academic presses" (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Fails 5.2 and 5.4 -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The characterization by Stalwart of the author of this item as a blogger who, in this instance, has turned his hand to writing a slightly-more-scholarly style of essay is deserving of contempt and has no place in this discussion. Beyond that, Stalwart chants his tired refrain (self-publishing) and spices that with further evidence of his bias by placing words like “sources” and “authors” in quotation marks. His clear attempts at character assassination are self-evident. Beyond this venom, he says nothing coherent or persuasive about notability. I offered my reasons above, under Lucky, item #2, for dissenting from Cardamom’s specific application of WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP to these items. I disagree for the same reasons here.Tristan noir (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Categories: