Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy to the World, Our Teacher's Dead


 * 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   no consensus. Presented here are specific reasons to merge it, specific reasons to keep it, and specific reasons why merging it is specifically a bad idea. The article is clearly not going to be deleted based on this discussion, but I'm wary of pretending there's any real consensus as to what to do with the material. ~ mazca  talk 13:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Joy to the World, Our Teacher&

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Parody song with no significant cultural impact or notability. The sources listed are to forum posts and personal websites, not reliable sources. Most of the article consists of various lyrics, not prose about the song. I note that a version of this was sung by Nelson Muntz in a Simpsons episode, but not every Simpsons joke needs an article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found a few sources easily ( and ) and I'm sure there are others. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  14:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The song achieves greater google hits using "Joy to the World, The Teacher's Dead". -- Pink Bull  16:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge anything relevant and redirect to Joy to the World unless something more significant than lyrics and passing mentions can be added per WP:NOT.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect to Joy to the World. Re Hunter Khan's sources:  does not constitute "significant coverage" per WP:N (it's a one-line reference to the relevant Simpsons episode).   is a one-line reference in a semi-fictionalised prose-poetry piece by author Nikki Gemmell and is neither significant nor reliable.  Plenty of other hits on Google but I can't find any that constitute reliable significant coverage.  The lack of consensus on the lyrics of the alleged song, plus the fact that the most widely used version was popularised by the Simpsons, is good evidence that encyclopaedic coverage of this topic in a stand-alone article isn't possible and it would be more appropriately dealt with in the article on the original version. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect per the above analyses. -- Pink Bull  02:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect A merge may not be necessary ( nothing of value to add of the main article ) As an aside, the entire  > seems to have WP:OR issues.  Pirate Argh!!1!  03:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No merge, no redirect Merging this is about as good an idea as making God Save the Queen (Sex Pistols song) a section of God Save the Queen. It's not the old days where Wikipedia articles had to have a "fun" reference to The Simpsons, Family Guy or Monty Python.  It's not a good idea to make this part of an article about the 18th century Christian hymn and popular Christmas carol Joy to the World.  I'd rather have an idiotic article called "Joy to the World in popular culture" than an idiotic section in a what should remain a serious article.   Mandsford (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - God Save the Queen (Sex Pistols song) has a complete article with more substance than just lyrics (in fact, it doesn't have the lyrics, it doesn't need them) and a couple of trivial tidbits. The article under AfD does not go beyond lyrics and a little trivia, and unless more can be added, it is a case of WP:NOT.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think you might have misunderstood the "no merge, no redirect" statement, which did not advocate keeping this article, but just pointed out that the worst possible outcome would be to put this piece of trivia (is that a trivium?) in the Joy to the World article. God Save the Queen was probably a bad analogy, as the two songs with that title share nothing but the title, but I agree with my reading of Mandsford's statement, which is that if this is not kept as a separate article then it should be deleted.Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarify Redirect to Joy to the World and let the editors of the Joy to the World article decide what, if any, content should be included.  Pirate Argh!!1!  01:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * weak Keep Sufficient material for a separate article, though not referenced as well as it should be.    DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I won't bold a !vote since right now I don't have time to examine any sources but this song does bring back memories. I remember it being sung when I was in grade school. (early 70s) Though it was more popular on the bus then on the playground. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Mandsford - there seems enough content to call for a separate article.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 22:41, 26 March 2010 (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.