Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muggeseggele

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. People disagree about whether the sourcing of this Swabian word is sufficient for inclusion.  Sandstein  06:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Muggeseggele

Muggeseggele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article has no establishment of Notability and is basically a dictionary article.

See WP:NAD ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. As I've discussed at the article's talk page, most of the content is dictionary stuff (e.g. etymology, English counterparts). The claims to notability are that 1) a famous businessperson mentioned it as an example of the Swabian dialect, and 2) it's taught in classes. I do not believe either of these claims establishes notability for a word or expression. Note: I also made some suggestions at the article talk page about places this content could be merged to. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  Edit: Since I posted this original comment, the article has been updated, and basically two new claims to notability have added: 3) some sports teams use this word as their name, and 4) readers in a newspaper poll liked this word. Regarding (3), this of course has no bearing on notability: a word is a word, and who uses it or how often they use it has no bearing on notability; the only thing that has bearing on notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. (For instance, if there were substantial controversy or discussion about a sports teams' having used a certain word as its name, then it might be notable, although it might also be more appropriate to be part of the sports team's article or merged to an article about the controversy, see e.g. Cleveland Indians#Nickname and logo controversy and Washington Redskins#American Indian mascot controversy.) Regarding (4), this one is more open to interpretation I guess, but in my opinion as an editor I do not think reader polls are evidence of notability. A reader poll (regardless of how "large" the newspaper is--asides about how large a newspaper is don't even belong in an article, it's just there to try to drum up notability) can show that lots of people know a word or lots of people like a word, but they don't demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources, and as I have said above, the fact that a lot of people know or use or like or dislike a word does not make it notable. Significant coverage in sources (not just polls) would do that, although I can't find that kind of coverage in the sources provided; for instance, the source cited (currently in the lede) for "Muggeseggele has an iconic character and is one of the most preferred Swabian idioms" appears to be just an interview with one person, who mentions the word once as a word that he likes, defines it (saying he thinks it sounds nice) and says little more about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The ell was originally a cubit, later replaced by the cloth-ell or 'double ell'.

This article is truely written in the style of an encyclopedia and does not fit into a dictionary at all. The closest English term is "gnat's cock" or a "gnat's dick". Although it is possible to measure the diameter of this organ of a gnat, nobody would assume that this term is used as a precise dimension such as a millimetre. However, some Suebians believe, that a previously vague unit equals now the average length of 0.22 millimetres. If one follows your request for deletion, you would need to delete also ell and Foot (unit). Could it be that the slightly embarrasing function of this body part is the real reason for requesting its deletion? Please keep this article! --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The article sghould be read before coming up with claims like "no notability established". To the contrary, various (sourced) information about its notability is being provided

• Iconic character, stated e.g. by Wolfgang Wulz as President of Verein Schwäbische Mundart (Association of the Swabian Tongue)
• One of the most preferred Swabian idioms.
• It has been dubbed as the smallest Swabian measurement unit.
• One of the very rare instances of sexually themed abusive words in the German language
• Prominent example of peculiar admirable Swabian Onomatopoeia.
• Use to signify a Swabian cultural influence on others
• The term is being used as example for must-know Swabian vocabulary in courses of Swabian as a foreign language in Tübingen.

I understand this as a sort of WP:POINT maneuvre to torpedo a DYK nomination, whch was already on the waiting list. Serten (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

NearEMPTiness and Serten: please do not keep trying to discredit editors who disagree with you by making unfounded speculations about their motives. We have already discussed at length the reasons behind my concerns, and it is already abundantly clear that you think the claims establish notability and I do not. There is no reason for you to suggest that any editors are trying to delete this article because it's about penises or because of anything having to do with DYK (indeed, the status of an article on DYK has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on an AfD debate; "it's notable because it's been nominated for DYK" is not at all a valid argument against deletion). You have no evidence to suggest that and it is completely unrelated to the discussion; please stay on topic and address the arguments, rather than the editors. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We had a merge discussion first and now its about deletion, please understand that this lacks consistency and I uphold the notion aboit WP:point. Furthermore you have not substantiated your claims, your statements a) b) purporte a lack of sourcing which is easily ruled out by reading the article. Serten (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC) PS.: BTW - have a look on the German Wikipedia Main page de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite/Schon_gewusst, today and tomorrow Muggeseggele is being featured there. Serten (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said anything about lack of sources. Also, the status of an article on another language Wikipedia is not relevant here; different Wikipedias have different content guidelines. Finally, the person who nominated this for deletion is a different editor than I (the person who started the merge discussion) am; of course different people sometimes have different opinions, and it's quite inappropriate to you to suggest that either of us has bad or POINTy motives just because we don't hold the same opinions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Lets discuss the claims, which imho are substantiated by various sources. My count is at least 7 claims of notability, yours is about 2 and youre doubting them as well. How to explain the difference? Serten (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's do that.

1. This appears to be a dictionary like entry in a self published e-book. Hardly a WP:RS and does not establish notability.
2. The only thing in this article that refers to the word in question is a statement that this is one of the person being interviewed's favorite words. Certainly is not the subject of the article (which is what WP:N requires... not simply that the subject is mentioned within an article)
3. This one again is simply a mention of the word in the article. It is simply a funny way to introduce the article, which is actually about a seminar and was the answer to a question at the seminar. Does not establish notability.
4. This reference only has the word once in the entire book, and I could not find a translation. I have no way to establish notability from this source, but I wouldn't rest a case on this source one way or another.
5. See previous note.
6. This reference is completely irrelevant and needs to be removed.
7. Again, basically just a definition...
8. See number 3, same reference
9. Again, the article is not about the subject of the Wikipedia entry, just a passing reference to a similar English term.
10. See 12... not about the subject, the English equivalent phrase is simply used, not discussed.

So it appears that you don't actually have any sources that actually establish notability... since none of the sources in the article qualify as such. This word may be notable for German Wikipedia, but it is not notable for English Wikipedia. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

OK

1. Never heard of Langenscheidt? Calling a Langenscheidt dictionary a "self published e-book" is ridiculous.
2. Wulz is head of the association for the swabian dialect, clear indication of iconic status
3. The report about the seminar puts muggaseggele on the titel and indicates iconic status in the text
4. Try as well Muckenseckel, there are different ways to write it, gauger elaborates on it as well, long entry, clear indication of notability in a scholarly book
5. see above
6. I doubt so, gauger is clear about the topic and challenges Dundes Thesis
7. see above
8. Dostert - clearly indication of use and value and iconic status
9. petershagen - clear indication of use value and measurement by expert
10. Gnats cock is refered to as a sort of "see also" entry, completely appropriate and adding value

Strong Keep Serten (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that resources about language happen to use a word as an example of dialect differences is not an indicator of notability. Look at English for comparison; in the United States there is regional variation in whether people call this "soda" or "pop", and there are literally hundreds of articles and websites devoted entirely to this topic (see e.g. http://www.popvssoda.com/, [1], [2], [3]), but that does not necessarily mean any of these words are notable (and indeed, none of them have Wikipedia articles). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The difference between Muggeseggele and Muckenseckel in german is similar to the one between Potatoe and Potato, so pop/soda does not apply. There are difference between sources like Gauger, langenscheidt and Wurz and pop/soda bloggers. Gauger is a serious scholar and the book in question is noteable [4], Langenscheidt an international active publishing house doing encyclopedic books and Wulz the head of the Swabian dialect association[5]. Pop/soda bloggers are just pop/soda bloggers. Serten (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

While the books may be notable... the word muggeseggele is not the SUBJECT of the books, they are only mentioned in passing as a single example of the swabian dialect. This would be akin to saying that "sneeker" is a notable word because some language professor mentions that it is only in New England that it is used... ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do you thnk that? Gauger wrote various pages in his book about the linguistics of the word, thats not a dictionary. If you ask for a book / monography just about muggaseggele, sorry thats a Bridge to far. If you like to see a suitable example, take the entry about How (greeting), best the de:Howgh. Noteable, for sure. Muggaseggele is either used as a measurement unit and to adresse the member of a male fly. Serten (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Enjoys a long achieved cult status. See references. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. A word that may have an iconic status in German doesn't necessarily make the grade in English. The article is about a German word, sourced almost entirely in German. The three or so English citations do "bugger all" in defining or documenting the word's status in English usage – in fact they merely point to the use of "gnat's crotch" without drawing any specific reference to the German term. Pardon my French ;-), but we quite rightly don't see entries to "connard" or "pédé" for that same reason despite the fact these are equally "iconic". Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You refer to Pédé, thats related to enWP Faggot. I guess the discussion is more about Gnats cock than about Muggeseggele and the article doesnt speak white enough for some guys. Serten (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The term that comes from the Alemannic dialect, enjoying long time in the German cult status and is standard knowledge for anyone who is interested in Swabia and its inhabitants and its culture. See references. --Jocian (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact that a word is "common knowledge" does not in of itself make that word notable (see WP:IKNOWIT and WP:Subjective importance).
    The editors arguing 'keep' also keep making reference to the "iconic" or "cult" status of the word, which as far as I can tell is basically a personal, subjective judgment. The source provided in the article doesn't actually make this claim; as far as I can tell from Google Translate, it's an interview with one individual saying that he likes that word. Other sources that have been mentioned include those just listing the word as a well-known example a word in this dialect; that is hardly unusual or impressive for language materials (any resources about any given dialect will mention some key examples of words from that dialect). Sources like these are not sufficient to establish "iconic" status of a word--and even if they were, I am not sure that something as vague as "iconic" status of a word directly translates into notability anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We had this article in much smaller and less sourced version on the German art for deletion page and then at the german Did you know. Now we have to tell a blind guy about the colour of milk - if you dont get the meaning - godness, google translate - why dont you ask somebody who knows about stuff? Serten (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have already explained to you that the presence or absence of the article on another Wikipedia has no bearing on its notability here. Different Wikipedias have different inclusion criteria (for example, editors on French Wikipedia chose to include a dictionary of Han characters on their Wikipedia, something which would never happen on en-wiki).

As for Google Translate--yes, I'm not a speaker of German, so I use what resources I have available to try and gauge what is in the references, while being aware of the potential limitations of automatic translation. Many Wikipedia editors do this. Are you suggesting that editors who don't speak German do not have the right to participate in this discussion? rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm think I would have to leave then. Serten (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I accidentally left off the word "don't" in my message, and have corrected it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

---

I provided some further links to underline the claim of "iconic use". I still dont get the point why notability is still doubted. Serten (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, the content you added is extremely trivial. A sport team using this word as their name, or a person using this word in a sentence, is far from establishing notability. These are examples of the word being used, not examples of the word being discussed in reliable sources--you can read about the use-mention distinction to understand this difference. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - does not seem to be a notable usage, certainly not in English, nor other than trivial. While this is not a pure hoax, there is a student-joke quality to this material that basically just brings the project into disrepute. There is no censorship here, just a preference for worthwhile material. The article is basically about a word, so WP:NOTDICT may well apply also. The comparisons with possible English counterparts suggest WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Keep. Various notions of notability presented. No notable usage in English is a sort of speak white argument and I stronly deny that being valid. It might have a sort of student joke character like Jakob Maria Mierscheid which is noteable and finds its way into fandom and newspapers. And yes, a sports team (and in case of ultimate, its the one that hosted a world championship) using the gunners or the Muggenseggele as name is clearly an indication of notability. Serten (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You have already !voted above; to help keep things organized for the admin who will be reading this discussion, please indent this comment and remove the bolded "keep". Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that's a duplicate !vote. And that isn't what Wikipedia calls evidence of notability, no. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasnt aware that the votes of the previous list are counted here again. Serten (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Nonnotable word. Examples of usage or brief mention do not establish notability. Edison (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Gaugers elaborate address of the phraseology and etymology of Mucken seckel/ Muggeseggele / and Seggel is not to be called an "entry" or brief notion. As well are references to the word and in the way they are annotated to Wulz and Lindner in major newspaper clear indications of notability and NOT mentioning. Serten (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep References show significance. --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Would you care to elaborate on how they show significance? As you can see from the discussion above, clearly some editors think the references establish notability and some don't. So just saying it's notable (when that point is the whole crux of the disagreement) without giving any reason why, is not terribly helpful. See WP:JNN. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I have the impression that anybody with ability to read German has a quick look on the sources, nods, grins and is completely in line with the notability, while it seems to be a problem for non natives. I have done lists, explained the high scholarly standing of Gauger, the role of Wurz and Lindner - completely lost. It is a case of german humour, but seems not to work with limeys at all. Big sigh. Serten (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Please refrain from ad hominem remarks. Wikipedia has an explicit policy (WP:NPA) saying "comment on content, not on contributors". rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
        • To explain my point, have a look at [=taxon_concept&commit=Filter Hans-Peter Tschorsnigs EOL Entry], the guy who measured the length of the Muggenseggele is a quite serious scholar - the extremly deadpan humour of the (of cause noteable) fact which goes in the same direction as Stone louse seems to be lost in translation. Serten (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
          • This article is now clearly seen and admitted to be a silly piece of attempted humour. The only appropriate outcome of AfD is deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
            • See WP:JNN for this comment, not terribly helpful, like most of the comments of the deletion supporters. A lot of emotions and prejudice. --Papa Kern (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please recall the Wikipedia policy of NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Comments of that kind are unacceptable here at AfD or anywhere else. However, my comment was made quietly and dispassionately, and on reflection I stand by it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about your comments? --Papa Kern (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

+Agreed. It seems some guys miss the difference between an WP hoax and a RL hoax. This is a German RL hoax AND a real item and has been measured being 0,22 mm long by an scholarly expert. Silly piece of attempted humour. Please be reminded that german hunour exists and comes in small portions. here is one ;) Serten (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of humour, German or any other kind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Some people may have a sort of Gore Effect or Dementor cloud around them, making humour non-existant around their perimeter. However I found Humour exists, German humour seems to be a valid entry, and Muggeseggele is a classical example of a xxxx in trousers deadpan twinkle of the elsewhere mercilessly efficient humourless German engineer in the best traditions of Mierscheid law. Stop kidding please, zis is serious business. Serten (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that reflects the knowledge of actually existing phenomena − and the lemma informed about not only a sense of humor expressed in a German region, but it illustrates the production and reception history of a typical German phenomenon. The dialect expression as described in the lemma appears trivial at first glance, but he shows how humor in German manifested: the vernacular, which is always interested in a sexually connoted subject, teams up here with a fact-based science, on typical German kind of like "stubborn thoroughness", "perfect accuracy" and "dry humor that plays with complex hints".

The phenomenon described in the article is a little key to understanding how "tick" the Germans. More can not do an encyclopedia when they explained a phenomenon in a different language culture and society as here. --Jocian (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The key question seems to be: Is Muggeseggele relevant for speakers of the English language?

• Did Obama and Merkel diskuss Muggeseggele during any of their meetings. No But maybe in the very, very, very secret talks? Lets ask the NSA!
• Was Muggeseggele the last word Hitler said, before he shot himself? No. Actually he did say:" Verdommt! Verdommt! Wie fonktionniert döse domme Pis... "
• Is there any English newspaper or book which refers to Muggeseggele? Very probably not.
• Is it true that Muggeseggele is a common householdword in Germany? "Welches Wort?" "Muggeseggele!" "Hab' ich noch nie gehört...was ist das?" No, it is not.
• Can you understand German linguistic humor without knowing Muggeseggele? Yes. Berufsverbot or Weltschmerz are much better examples and study objects.
• Without knowing Muggeseggele, can you find access and understand the works of Kafka? Definitively Yes. But still very depressing. Try reading something from T. Pratchett..!

I would use similar tests of relevance for an expression used by Southerners for a defined part in catfish intestine anatomy which is used for VERY funny purposes on saturday nights after dinner (...) and which is supposed to enter the German language Wikipedia.

Muggeseggele is großartig (great) for the alemannic WP; it is grenzwertig (borderline) for the German language WP; and it is absolutely irrelevant for the Spanish, Portugese, French, Japanese and Polish WP. Oh ja, auch für die Englischsprachige... delete Peace GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Grey Geezer: While I of course agree with you that the article should be deleted, I'm not sure your rationale is quite valid. The general notability guideline on English Wikipedia is not language-specific--that is to say, if something meets the notability guideline in one part of the world or one group of speakers, then that is enough to meet the guideline for English Wikipedia. (See the second paragraph of WP:UNKNOWNHERE.) There aren't things that en-wiki would consider notable for de-wiki (or any other Wikipedia) but not en-wiki. (That being said, there can be differences across Wikipedias because some of them have different notability criteria; but that's a different issue; from the perspective of en-wiki, something notable in one language is notable in any language).

That being said, I still believe the article still does not meet the notability criterion--for the other reasons that are outlined above. I just wanted to clarify the criterion for you here and see whether or not you want to reconsider your !vote. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I stay with my point. On top of it - comparing the other units in this category - the category "Customary units of measurement" seems inappropriate/wishful thinking. It means "a wee bit" which you find in Wiktionary. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 21:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

How difficult is the way but to knowledge. This all seekers deserve a whole Muggeseggele more than a Quantum of Solace. That's the difference − a Muggeseggele. --Jocian (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rjanag, that geezers point misses completely the conditions for notability in any Wikipedia. Take zh:阿尔伯特广场 (德累斯顿) in the chinese WP, an article about a pittoresque street crossing in Dresden. There is no rule that confines notability to the language of the sources provided nor wether a certain fact is present in a nation or culture, we wont erase Women's rights in arabic for such reasons neither. Geezer is in contrary to me no (German) "Southerner". I see the useability of Muggeseggele in presenting swabian humour to an audience, that might (dream to) drive cars, that is actually being treated with medical devices, that wears textiles seamed by machinery which all is being produced in a region that takes a Muggeseggele as a unit for diligence. Serten (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That is a completely different kind of situation though. This is specifically about a word in a specific language, not a universal concept like Women's Rights, or a geographic location that exists in the world. A slang word in a minor German dialect is not anymore notable in English than the slang usage of the word "Y'all" or "Aint" would be on German wikipedia. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Be careful, it is NOT a slang or four letter wordword, and ist has a concept behind, I assume gnats dick lacks that. Muggeseggele can be used towards children, e.g. in the website Ein Fall für B.A.R.Z. ist being explained like that. Mostly MS is being used as a measurement unit, (move the picture a MS to the left or technically "the cabling is a MS too close to the heater according EN 60335-2-27" or even we still have a MS of time). Futhermore Baden Württemberg / the region where u find the expression as a state would have 2 Million people more than than the Kingdom of Sweden, so far for minor. Serten (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, the number of speakers who use a given word has no bearing on notability. English also has many comparable words used by even more people (e.g. "the cabling is a mite too close"), and none of them are notable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm tell me one that has been elected being the most beautiful word in a regional dialect? 2009 that happend to Muggeseggele after a survey of readers of Stuttgarter Nachrichten, thats a serious daily newspaper with a circulation of 200.000, [6]. Serten (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That makes it incredibly notable IN THAT REGION and THAT LANGUAGE. However, it still is not notable at all in English. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you go so far to ask for the deletion of Swabian German ? Which regulation about region and language allows you to stop Muggeseggele being mentioned there and having its own article as well in the enWP? Serten (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Not the same thing. An article about a language itself is different than an article about a word within a language. As far as regulations about region and language, it's common sense. We don't have articles about every peculiar word or idiom in every language, because it isn't notable in THIS language. Nor does the German Wiki have articles about peculiar words or idioms in English, because it is not notable in German contexts. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You been ever to the german WP? de:On Bullshit de:Gore-Effekt, de:Atari Democrat, de:Howgh ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serten (talk • contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at those, shall we?

1. de:On Bullshit - This isn't about the word Bullshit, it is about a book written about the term Bullshit. Not analogous.
2. de:Gore-Effekt - This is a term that has been used on the floor of the UN, so it has international usage. Not analogous.
3. de:Atari Democrat - This is the name of a political movement, so it has international bearing (since political movements often have international visibility and impact). Similar I would think to "Tea Party" in terms of it's broad necessity. Not analogous.
4. de:Howgh - This term is used in German song lyrics and therefore it is reasonable to have it represented on the German Wiki. If you survey 100 Americans, 99 of them will have no idea what the word means, and will likely think it is somehow related to Harry Potter (Muggle). Not analogous. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep.

1. I think the most important difference is the use/mention issue. On BS is about a very american concept - however it found its way in the deWP.
   1. The article isn't on the concept, or the use of the word. It is about a book. Not at all the same thing.
2. Here we talk about usage. "At our Indian premises, everybody knows what a muggaseggele is" by a major german industrialist is not the UN but international as well
   1. "by a major german industrialist" - It might be notable on the India Wiki then... but even that would be a stretch.
3. Atari Democrat compare de:Blue Dog Coalition, rather local, still notable;) Gauche caviar / de:Toskana-Fraktion would be more international
   1. Again... about a political movement. The movement has representatives from all over the US, hardly local.
4. de:Howgh de:Indianerbild im deutschen Sprachraum (How germans identify with American Indians) would be worth to translate. I would love to have a source on your survey and mention it in Howgh! Since the Brothers Grimm, germans tend to be more interested in others folklore. Serten (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
   1. That doesn't change anything. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep See last paragraph from Serten (Stuttgarter Nachrichten). --Papa Kern (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Despite having edited the article early on, I stayed out of this because I couldn't make up my mind, and was hoping someone would turn up at least one solid reference discussing the English terms, to balance the fact the Swabian term is demonstrated in the article to be frequently discussed as an exemplar of the dialect. Looking at it again now, I still think it's very close, but the Stuttgarter Nachrichten poll article puts it over the top for me. In my opinion the article now contains enough references to reliable sources discussing it - as opposed to passing mentions of what it means, or examples of its use - to pass general notability (and to remain an article at the Swabian title and predominantly about the Swabian term). Immaterial that the corresponding English terms don't have such discussion in reliable sources; that just means the article shouldn't be moved to an English title. This version of Wikipedia is in English, but that doesn't mean it covers only English-speaking topics. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I have updated my !vote rationale at the top of this discussion to reflect changes made to the article since my original !vote. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Rjanag The "one person" you mentioned is the President of the Swabian dialect association. That doesnt give him scholarly authority, (however the lengthy entry in Gaugers linguistic book does), but he speaks for a larger community. A possible compromise would be to move the entry to Swabian and Aegidius and to provide a redirect from here. But I assume it has a right of its own. PS.: I found some entries on scholar and think they add notability. It seems that foreigners (germans and non germans) in Baden Württemberg normally dont adapt to the accent but use some specific swabian expressions as a cultural code to show will to integrate respectively their status as part of the local community. Muggenseggele is mentioned and used as one of those specific expressions. I understood from the discussion that I had made an error in so far in coming up with "use" instead of "notion". However this indicates notion, since Muggenseggele is not only being used as "a tiny bit" but as well to signify "I may have come from elsewhere but now I belong to this region." Serten (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The article has now been so far expamded and contains a lot of useful and non-trivial information that it cannot be merged with another page. A deletion would not be fair according to Wikipedia's objectives and rules. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2013 (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.