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.
Having attempted a cleanup, the only suitable external source left is the NPR story which doesn't seem sufficient to justify the page. The rest is a promo for Ben Myers and the stuff about Horse_ebooks doesn't really belong here. Dubbinu |
t |
c16:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - While there isn't a whole lot out there covering the term, it is significantly notable to warrant keeping the page.
Meatsgains (
talk)
16:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and/or Merge with
Spoetry (suggesting we keep that article only because it's older), and Rename the result to
Spam poetry. There's poetry and literary prose in spam email to get around spam filters which has been written about quite a bit, and there are people who create poetry from spam. The former (which right now is called "Spam Lit" but only because of a Guardian article) is the more notable, but there's no reason not to mention both, since they're often covered together and obviously related. "Spam poetry" is mentioned in many places (far more than "spam lit"), but sources call it different things (talking about poetry breeds poetic descriptors like so many roses cut by their owners' diamond shears). "Spam poetry" is both among the most used and the most plainly descriptive. Sources are easy to find. I can link them later if someone wants, but it just took a quick googling. — Rhododendritestalk \\
05:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)reply
A redirect isn't appropriate as the two phenomena are very different. 'Spam lit' is just one type of spam and not notable in my opinion - it could be mentioned in passing at
Spam but I maintain this page should be deleted. Dubbinu |
t |
c14:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge perhaps if needed as there's certainly nothing actually convincing for its own article, nothing to suggest this can stay as is currently.
SwisterTwistertalk07:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Having attempted a cleanup, the only suitable external source left is the NPR story which doesn't seem sufficient to justify the page. The rest is a promo for Ben Myers and the stuff about Horse_ebooks doesn't really belong here. Dubbinu |
t |
c16:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - While there isn't a whole lot out there covering the term, it is significantly notable to warrant keeping the page.
Meatsgains (
talk)
16:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and/or Merge with
Spoetry (suggesting we keep that article only because it's older), and Rename the result to
Spam poetry. There's poetry and literary prose in spam email to get around spam filters which has been written about quite a bit, and there are people who create poetry from spam. The former (which right now is called "Spam Lit" but only because of a Guardian article) is the more notable, but there's no reason not to mention both, since they're often covered together and obviously related. "Spam poetry" is mentioned in many places (far more than "spam lit"), but sources call it different things (talking about poetry breeds poetic descriptors like so many roses cut by their owners' diamond shears). "Spam poetry" is both among the most used and the most plainly descriptive. Sources are easy to find. I can link them later if someone wants, but it just took a quick googling. — Rhododendritestalk \\
05:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)reply
A redirect isn't appropriate as the two phenomena are very different. 'Spam lit' is just one type of spam and not notable in my opinion - it could be mentioned in passing at
Spam but I maintain this page should be deleted. Dubbinu |
t |
c14:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge perhaps if needed as there's certainly nothing actually convincing for its own article, nothing to suggest this can stay as is currently.
SwisterTwistertalk07:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)reply
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.