Talk:Fujiwara no Nagako

"Multiple issues"
Dear and, thanks for not seeking a discussion before marking the article as missing the general notability guidelines.

Knock yourselves out in improving the writing quality: I'm not a native speaker and don't regularly write full articles in en-WP, so I'm grateful for whatever you need to fix in my writing style. I simply can't fix my own errors as you didn't point out what is so atrocious in my "grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling".

Also, knock yourselves out and find better sources than the provided dissertation on the subject. I have now included, just so that it's no longer "only a single source": That doesn't do anything to help the source problems, since Brewster is still the single authority I'm citing here; I'm not citing Anton given that she merely confirms/repeats Brewster's findings. My question is, for which reason do you deem Jennifer Brewster's dissertation as insufficient to prove the contents of the article?
 * an extremely superficial biography by Marina Grey and Jacques Chiappe. I borrowed Chiappe's encyclopedia from the library and took notes; but all it can do here is prove that Sanuki Tenji was considered to be one of the four most world-famous women from Japan (as judged by the bias of this French couple of historians).
 * a genuine Japanese author on the subject, whom I have not read since I'm not literate in Japanese.
 * a shorter German dissertation, apparently relying mostly on Brewster's previous work.

Finally, why are you questioning the general notability of one of the most notable women's authors from Heian period Japan? This really confused me, did you simply not read the article? --Enyavar (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all- quit the combative communication. Please review WP policy on WP:NOTABILITY. If sources do not exist to establish the notability- then the subject doesn't need a WP article. It might be better to find an existing article to mention them in. Now- neither of us marked this article as needing deletion- which means we both understand and agree it has potential- what we are doing is giving you a direction to work in to get it up to WP standards. You can either do that- and if you need help you can ask politely. Or you can leave it as it is, get combative, get warned for WP:NPA, WP:OWN, WP:Battleground, WP:AGF and a variety of other policies you really should check out before you jump down the throats of people who tagged the article with the intention of drawing attention to areas of improvement- and hopefully drawing the attention of more editors who can contribute and make this a more well developed and rounded article.  Nightenbelle (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * hi thanks for your message. Re notability, Wikipedia requires in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, and when I tagged this article it only had one, which is not sufficient. Thanks for adding more. We don’t judge notability by what an article says about its subject, so the fact that the article makes a claim that the subject is notable doesn’t help. I don’t deem Brewster’s dissertation as insufficient to prove the contents, I’m saying it is insufficient, in its own, to demonstrate notability.


 * I also tagged it as needing footnotes because in principle each factual statement in an article needs a source. In reality few articles are that closely sourced, but we should certainly not have entire paragraphs with no indication of a source. Mccapra (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)