This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical music: Compositions This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this redirect or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles This redirect is supported by Compositions task force.

The article text contains "Little therefore can be said about the work...": this doesn't seem to indicate something that would pass WP:GNG and/or WP:NMUSIC requirements – In Bossuyt's book it is a footnote of six lines; the "quebec" website doesn't even mention the work (it uses the "BWV 248a" number, erroneously, as a reference to BWV 248 I). I suggest a merge to the BWV 248 VI article, where the cantata fragment is explained, with adequate references, in the Herr, wenn die stolzen Feinde schnauben, BWV 248 VI#Cantata fragment BWV 248 VI a section. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I think you are right. This article is rather muddled. Perhaps the other article could be expanded a little.-- Thoughtfortheday ( talk) 09:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Re. "Perhaps the other article could be expanded a little":

• I have no intention to go on rambling, in the BWV 248 VI article, about "lost" cantatas when BWV 248 VI a does not belong in that category. BTW, that's the main reason why I placed the {{ Original research}} banner tag, while none of the available reliable sources say it is lost or that "Its existence can be deduced as some of the music was borrowed for (whatever)" – straight nonsensical original research.
• The Bossuyt source has now been transferred to the BWV 248 VI article.
• The Herr, wenn die stolzen Feinde schnauben, BWV 248 VI#Cantata fragment BWV 248 VI a section is a subsection of Herr, wenn die stolzen Feinde schnauben, BWV 248 VI#History, which has an {{ expand section}} tag. Feel free to contribute!

-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

At the risk of being accused of rambling on, would it be possible to describe the Michaelmas cantata as a "lost cantata", or the fragment in question as being "all that is known to survive" of a cantata?-- Thoughtfortheday ( talk) 11:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Bossuyt calls it lost "except for..." (so at least: not entirely lost); what remains is contained in the D-B Mus.ms. Bach St 112 VI, Fascicle 1 manuscript (i.e., 4 of its instrumental parts show the BWV 248a version), which is "all that is known to survive" of a cantata version (the music of the BWV 248a cantata of course also almost entirely survives in the BWV 248 VI Epiphany cantata). If anyone cares to flesh out some of the details that might help readers to understand more easily, please go ahead at the BWV 248 VI article. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for explaining. Yes, I will think about whether some of these details could usefully be included.-- Thoughtfortheday ( talk) 13:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

These clarifications being applied, I suppose we can safely reinstate the redirect. Any objections? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply