Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narodil se Kristus pán


 * 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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6; 09:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Narodil se Kristus pán

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

.....which should be made in opposite way Heptapolein (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC) .....that article is about the copy (version) of original song.Heptapolein (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC) ....interesting, that the creator of German article agreed with it, because she realizes German version arose from original Czech song. It is logical, that original version should be preffered Heptapolein (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Duplicate article; initially a redirect: Article already exists at Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt, and it should be merged into it. "Narodil se Kristus pán" was initially a redirect created by that went to "Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt."
 * Other article is featured: The article Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt is on the Main Page today, in the Did you know... section.
 * User acted unilaterally & with possible motive: Narodil se Kristus pán was expanded from a redirect with nationalistic intent by ("it is originally Czech song, thus, it cannot be redirected to German copy", from the edit summary on the page which expanded the article) after the first one, with no consensus(WP:CONSENSUS) from anyone else.
 * Unnecessary: There is only one article that links to it, mainly due to it's initial function as a redirect.


 * I propose to delete the article per above. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 23:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Three articles link to it, and they mean the Czech, not the German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

.....Thank you for your objective and impartial stance, I appreciate your gesture. Greetings from Czechia Heptapolein (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a different article, about a different thing. Write an attribution on the talk page, and remove some duplication from the German. We have Puer natus est nobis and - derived from it - Lobt Gott, ihr Christen alle gleich, and hopefully you won't suggest to merge the Latin to the German. - Btw, "unnecessary" is no argument. All we do is voluntary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep (of course) - it is originally Czech carol and its German version is an adjusted copy. I really do not understand the proposal for deletion. On the contrary, the German duplication should be mentioned as an version of original song. The text of the article speaks clearly about the origin of the song. To call my article "nationalistic" is wrong, because "suum cuique" (Cicero) should be a basic rule. To prefer cover version would be really absurd praecedens. Heptapolein (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article about the original Czech carol should be kept. It makes sense.Geog25 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article should be kept in my opinion, it is a Czech Carol. Helveticus96 (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why should we keep an article about the derived German version Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt and forget about the Czech original? It's absurd. I can't see any nationalistic or false claims in Heptapolein's article, which could be potential arguments for a deletion. Oasis98 (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It makes more sense to keep the original as the main article rather than the cover. I could imagine this article with the added content from the German one and add a redirect from the German name here. In other words, get the German content here, add a redirect and delete the German article. It may sound nationalist but I'd still prefer this solution even if both versions were from the same country or the other way around. Or, we could just keep both versions since the German is better known and they don't conflict each other, therefore I see no other problem than redundancy, which isn't harmful. Vít Matějíček (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is not even much redundancy left. Two articles on different subjects, in different categories. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- If it is true that it has the oldest music manuscript, it is surely notable, though I am dubious about this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2018 (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.