Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Three Kings (parodies)


 * 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 delete. Essentially unanimous consensus to delete here and at the talk page move discussion. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

We Three Kings (parodies)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Parodies are widely mentioned in reliable sources, however none of these represent significant coverage, or provide the full lyrics such as we have here. The subject is already mentioned in the main article, but there's nothing here to merge, no reliable sources.Pontificalibus 15:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is already being discussed at Talk:We Three Kings (parodies), where there already seems to be consensus for deletion, including from the creator of this new article (which might qualify it for speedy deletion under G7). Perhaps discussion should be continued there, rather than duplicating it here. Station1 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My only reason for creating "... (parodies)" was to get the low-grade, gossip-column parody cruft cleared out from the We Three Kings article. I was concerned that simply deleting that low-grade material from that main article might lead to an edit-war of attrition, so moving it out to the "...(parodies)" location would at least give the option of saying "parody stuff belongs over there, not here".  I would support a deletion, but ask that we can consider accompanying that with some sort of statement at the main article that parody stuff doesn't belong. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For future reference, if low-grade gossip-column parody cruft doesn't belong in an article, it's unlikely to merit a new article all to itself.Pontificalibus 15:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I get that.  What I was also hoping to achieve was a result at the main We Three Kings article along the lines of "this material should not be re-instated in this article".  (If it's not good enough for its own parody article, then neither is it good enough for the main article.)  If our decision here is 'delete' (fine with me), can we supplement that with something (e.g. an agreed editing comment) at the main article that says "please do not put parody material here"? Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the argument that "if it's not good enough for its own parody article, then neither is it good enough for the main article" is simply absurd. If reliable sources cover parodies they are good enough to be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, if not in a separate article then as part of the We Three Kings article. And I really don't get who you all are who think that the original is so much more notable than the parodies. Weren't you children once? Didn't you sing "we three kings of Leicester Square" rather than "we three kings of Orient are"? And this is not low-grade, is not confined to gossip columns and is not cruft, but is a much more well-established part of (at least English) culture than the latest Internet meme. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that when I was at school (in North-West London in the 1960s and 1970s) the words to the first verse included "how fantastic, no elastic" rather than what is in the article, and this is confirmed by . I don't have time to look further at the moment, but am pretty certain that at least as many people have sung parodies of this carol as the original version, so would be very surprised if they didn't have significant coverage in reliable sources if people could only be bothered to look properly before commenting here. I would have thought that they are better presented in the We Three Kings article, but it seems that some editors are too straight-laced to admit that in popular culture this is a much-parodied carol. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have voted Delete at the other discussion place for this article.  RobinCarmody (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Once you take out the one specific parody which has no special significance, what do you have left? Not much, and that's got dubious sourcing. We Three Kings says all that's needed. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per the discussion in the move request. This is not an article about parodies of We Three Kings, but a collection of dubiously sourced quotes of no utility. BD2412  T 06:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per BD2412 - this is not an encyclopedia article about the parodies, using sources that talk about them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:00, 2 February 2021 (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.