Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoetry: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:33, 1 June 2016

Spoetry

(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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spam Lit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 *'''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. &mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 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. <font color="#cb7b40">'''Dubbin'''</font><sup>''[[User:Dubbin|u]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User talk:Dubbin#top|t]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Dubbin|c]]''</sup> 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
+::*{{ping|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 [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/mar/07/news.bookscomment 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.
+:::[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3247200.stm 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"). &mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 15:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)