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 merge to Spam poetry. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Lit

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 16:18, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-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/Spoetry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 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. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 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. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 14:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. See my response at the other AfD (no need to have parallel threads) :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:34, 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. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A joint consensus appears to have been reached on this page and a similar one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoetry. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 09:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ^^ agreed — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 16 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.