Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christus, Menschensohn

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 Helmut Schlegel. czar 07:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christus, Menschensohn

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence of notability: while this short text has been included in some religious song books, it doesn't seem to have received any actual attention from reliable, independent sources. Sources in article are databases, or lists of contents: only source with some further text is the "Werkhilfe zum Singheft", which is more of an educational/technical guide on how to perform it.

Trying to find actual sources about the song turns out to be fruitless. Nothing in GNews[1] or GBooks[2] (the one source is by Schlegel so doesn't count), and the 25 regular hits[3] produce nothing useful not already in the article. A redirect to Helmut Schlegel may be a good alternative for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Religion, Christianity, and Germany. Fram (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is well-enough sourced, and is of education value. --evrik ^(talk) 18:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'd defer to Gerda on this since she's the one who speaks German and has access to the sources. But I'd presume that there might be more coverage of the song in offline sources? I imagine the topic has wider coverage offline than online. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's review the sources in the article (current as of Special:Permalink/1095357779):
- 1 is a "hymn portrait", published in the Diocese of Limburg's semi-annual church music journal. Authors are a priest and the diocese of Limburg's head of church music, who also edits the journal.
- 2 is a database of hymns that mentions which hymnals contain the song
- 3 is a list of songs in the Limburg version of the Gotteslob (might be better to cite the Limburg Gotteslob directly)
- 4 is a primary source sales listing for 5
- 5 is the table of contents of a songbook that contains the hymn
- 6 is an excerpt from a songbook containing the hymn
- 7 is a booklet accompanying this collection of choral settings (published annually). Author is "Bundessingwart und Kantor im Christlichen Sängerbund", an evangelical choir organisation.
Of these sources, only 1 and 7 are worth considering, the rest is trivial database entries or sales material. Source 1 is from the time the new Gotteslob was introduced and contains several portraits of the new songs that were included for the Diocese of Limburg's version of the hymnal (the first part of the hymnal is identical for all German-speaking Catholic dioceses, but most dioceses have their own songs in the other part). I wouldn't be surprised if the authors were involved in the decision to include this song in the Limburg hymnal, but I haven't researched this further. Anyway, this is a good source. Source 7 is not Catholic and shows reception of the song outside the diocese and denomination of its origin. It is fairly short but a reasonable description of the song, written for people who want to use it in church service or for choirs.
Without source 1, this would be a clear "redirect to author" for lack of independent secondary sourcing. As it stands, we don't really have "multiple" independent sources doing an in-depth treatment. While the songs of the main (common) part of the Gotteslob have all been subject to in-depth critical commentary (see [4] for a list of some literature) there does not seem to be much about the Limburg hymns so far. Probably merging to the author is still the best solution until there is another in-depth discussion of the song. —Kusma (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. To clarify: Gotteslob is one book, with a regional section for numbers 700 and up, the regional section a collection of hymns traditionally sung in the region and new songs fro the region, like this one.
I think the guidelines for songs are mostly made for recorded songs with a broad publication. It seems a bit unfair to expect the same kind of reception for a regional hymn. What I see:
This is a song that is actually sung. There are many in Gotteslob which get practically never sung, but this one fits many occasions (as could be expanded based on ref 1 which I found only yesterday).

This is a hymn that has not yet made it to other regions of Gotteslob but to several other collections.

This is a text that inspired two composers.

This is a text written by a prolific and thoughtful author, and worth knowing about - I think - even if no second in-depth discussion pops up. We have IAR, no? Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glauben können wie du. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are not particularly good arguments. "People sing this", well, we need them to write about this. "This is only a regional hymn, so we should expect sources to be bad" sound more like a reason not to write individual articles about regional hymns, not to accept lower quality sourcing... and I do not think invoking IAR works particularly well to have four songs by this author as individual articles. Remember, we are not here to promote them, no matter whether they deserve that or not (and many texts are "worth knowing about" and we exclude them to prevent people from promoting their causes). Der Herr wird dich mit seiner Güte segnen in the main part of the Gotteslob is probably easiest to source; there seems to be far more written about it, even if the article doesn't reflect that. (I find the sources for Glauben können wie du slightly worse than the ones presented here, and am surprised it got so many "keep" comments). All of these articles btw suffer badly from broken links. —Kusma (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider the possibility of a merger and to welcome other viewpoints to this discussion and examination of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge without prejudice against recreation if more sources emerge - With deepest regrets, I think I have to side with Kusma's arguments here. It appears that there's really only one source that gives the hymn any decent coverage, with the rest being passing mentions at best. It's not because of the material because other hymns from the same collection appear to have had more coverage. This is not a !vote I take lightly: in fact, I was originally leaning a weak keep when I first saw that the article had been nominated, until I made my own search and found very little of use. I appreciate that the hymn helped inspire other musicians, but that isn't a claim to notability in and of itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why new sources should cover this song. It began regional and was successful beyond that region, that makes it notable for me even if not formally for Wikipedia. It will likely appear in the common section of Gotteslob in the next edition in a few decades. I could name a few in the same category (regional but beloved) but fear that I'd just provoke new deletion discussions. So just one example: Das Weizenkorn muss sterben. Big difference: the author is dead. I wish Brother Helmut a long life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Helmut Schlegel. Fails WP:NSONG per Kusma's analysis. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2022 (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.