- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was move to Spam poetry. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Spoetry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find external evidence of notability. There is a Guardian article written by the author of the Spoetry book. The other links are 404 or blogs. Dubbin u | t | c 16:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spam Lit. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and/or Merge with Spam Lit (suggesting we keep this 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. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree a rename to 'Spam poetry' would be appropriate here if the topic is felt to be notable. The term Spoetry is just a plug for one guy's book, really. The page should refer to the phenomenon more generally. But I maintain that Spam Lit doesn't belong here as it is a different phenomenon altogether. Dubbin u | t | c 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ Dubbin: Different altogether? Many of the links in the spoetry article also talk about spam lit, often in ways that overlap. Maybe it would be more accurate to call the joint subject "Spam and poetry" but they're certainly not unrelated. These are articles linked in from Spoetry:
- In fact The Guardian seems to define spoetry in the way we define spam lit. It isn't about making poetry from spam, it's the poetry in spam.
-
BBC and others explain how the of composing poetry based on spam (~"spoetry") seems to have started with the recognition of literary value of spam as spammers tried to get around filters, etc. (~"spam lit"). —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
15:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly, spammers using literary works to bypass filters feeds into the pre-existing trend of people thinking spam is sometimes poetic. But the two phenomena are still separate. If spammers started using the ingredients from packets of cereal, some of those might end up as 'spam poetry' but it wouldn't mean 'spam ingredients' are synonymous with 'spam poetry'. At best, what unites these topics is that they are connected with spam (one contributing to it, the other being derived from it). The sources are confusing and confused here, but I think we can still be methodical while respecting them. Dubbin
u |
t |
c
12:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that the two are synonymous -- just that they can be covered in one article because they're so closely related/overlapping. Many of the sources overlap to cover both and the terms they use are inconsistent and sometimes flipped. The
spam poetry article I'm advocating for would talk about both, explaining how they connect and differ. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
12:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I understand, and I agree they overlap, but I think the relationship is not Spam poetry > Spam lit but rather that they are both (unequal) subordinates of Spam. Dubbin u | t | c 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that the two are synonymous -- just that they can be covered in one article because they're so closely related/overlapping. Many of the sources overlap to cover both and the terms they use are inconsistent and sometimes flipped. The
spam poetry article I'm advocating for would talk about both, explaining how they connect and differ. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
12:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly, spammers using literary works to bypass filters feeds into the pre-existing trend of people thinking spam is sometimes poetic. But the two phenomena are still separate. If spammers started using the ingredients from packets of cereal, some of those might end up as 'spam poetry' but it wouldn't mean 'spam ingredients' are synonymous with 'spam poetry'. At best, what unites these topics is that they are connected with spam (one contributing to it, the other being derived from it). The sources are confusing and confused here, but I think we can still be methodical while respecting them. Dubbin
u |
t |
c
12:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Merge" or "Merge and Rename" -- I think the concept behind this article has had it's notability well established, with multiple books and articles being written about the topic. That said, it's ONE concept, and we already have an article on it in Spam Lit, but the name for the concept still seems to be in flux. Spoetry should absolutely NOT be the article name though... it's a term coined by only one book (and multiple books have been written), and as such is basically a neologism without backing. Spam Lit has a bit of support, but I like Spam poetry better, as being purely descriptive. In summary, merge the articles, and then either keep Spam Lit or rename Spam Lit to Spam Poetry (which I would prefer). Fieari ( talk) 07:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is probably the closest we'll get to consensus. I'm happier with a move+merge than with the current situation, anyway. Support moving Spoetry to Spam poetry and merging Spam lit into it. Dubbin u | t | c 11:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was move to Spam poetry. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Spoetry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find external evidence of notability. There is a Guardian article written by the author of the Spoetry book. The other links are 404 or blogs. Dubbin u | t | c 16:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spam Lit. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and/or Merge with Spam Lit (suggesting we keep this 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. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree a rename to 'Spam poetry' would be appropriate here if the topic is felt to be notable. The term Spoetry is just a plug for one guy's book, really. The page should refer to the phenomenon more generally. But I maintain that Spam Lit doesn't belong here as it is a different phenomenon altogether. Dubbin u | t | c 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ Dubbin: Different altogether? Many of the links in the spoetry article also talk about spam lit, often in ways that overlap. Maybe it would be more accurate to call the joint subject "Spam and poetry" but they're certainly not unrelated. These are articles linked in from Spoetry:
- In fact The Guardian seems to define spoetry in the way we define spam lit. It isn't about making poetry from spam, it's the poetry in spam.
-
BBC and others explain how the of composing poetry based on spam (~"spoetry") seems to have started with the recognition of literary value of spam as spammers tried to get around filters, etc. (~"spam lit"). —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
15:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly, spammers using literary works to bypass filters feeds into the pre-existing trend of people thinking spam is sometimes poetic. But the two phenomena are still separate. If spammers started using the ingredients from packets of cereal, some of those might end up as 'spam poetry' but it wouldn't mean 'spam ingredients' are synonymous with 'spam poetry'. At best, what unites these topics is that they are connected with spam (one contributing to it, the other being derived from it). The sources are confusing and confused here, but I think we can still be methodical while respecting them. Dubbin
u |
t |
c
12:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that the two are synonymous -- just that they can be covered in one article because they're so closely related/overlapping. Many of the sources overlap to cover both and the terms they use are inconsistent and sometimes flipped. The
spam poetry article I'm advocating for would talk about both, explaining how they connect and differ. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
12:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I understand, and I agree they overlap, but I think the relationship is not Spam poetry > Spam lit but rather that they are both (unequal) subordinates of Spam. Dubbin u | t | c 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that the two are synonymous -- just that they can be covered in one article because they're so closely related/overlapping. Many of the sources overlap to cover both and the terms they use are inconsistent and sometimes flipped. The
spam poetry article I'm advocating for would talk about both, explaining how they connect and differ. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
12:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly, spammers using literary works to bypass filters feeds into the pre-existing trend of people thinking spam is sometimes poetic. But the two phenomena are still separate. If spammers started using the ingredients from packets of cereal, some of those might end up as 'spam poetry' but it wouldn't mean 'spam ingredients' are synonymous with 'spam poetry'. At best, what unites these topics is that they are connected with spam (one contributing to it, the other being derived from it). The sources are confusing and confused here, but I think we can still be methodical while respecting them. Dubbin
u |
t |
c
12:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Merge" or "Merge and Rename" -- I think the concept behind this article has had it's notability well established, with multiple books and articles being written about the topic. That said, it's ONE concept, and we already have an article on it in Spam Lit, but the name for the concept still seems to be in flux. Spoetry should absolutely NOT be the article name though... it's a term coined by only one book (and multiple books have been written), and as such is basically a neologism without backing. Spam Lit has a bit of support, but I like Spam poetry better, as being purely descriptive. In summary, merge the articles, and then either keep Spam Lit or rename Spam Lit to Spam Poetry (which I would prefer). Fieari ( talk) 07:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is probably the closest we'll get to consensus. I'm happier with a move+merge than with the current situation, anyway. Support moving Spoetry to Spam poetry and merging Spam lit into it. Dubbin u | t | c 11:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.