Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bionade-Biedermeier


 * 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Bionade-Biedermeier
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article based on one single newspaper article from 2007 about a neologism in German isn't notable. -- User:NewJohn 21:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. For the record, there was imho no real 'first nom' but a formal error with this discussion. The neologism has spread and is as well mentioned in English speaking sources, as well several years after it was coined. Just before the AfD, the article has been cut down significantly recently, various English speaking (including scholalry) sources being erased. That included e.g. a listicle with cartoons from Ulli Lust published both in Süddeutsche and the Guardian, organic bourgeoisie = Bionade-Biedermeier. Twark, Hildebrandt (2015-05-15) 'Envisioning Social Justice in Contemporary German Culture' with a complete Chapter titled 'Social Consciousness in the Bionade-Biedermeier' was deleted as well. Then the AfD came. Sorta foul game, e.g. the important Shell Jugendstude has been quoted for 'Generation Biedermeier', not for 'Bionade Biedemeier', no reason to delete that, since it gives the wider picture. The responsible IP has a background in a sort of revenge from the deWP. There was one Czech source, which discussed a Gentrification topic in Berlin, I had done a google translate and surely it is about the topic but I am OK with   User:NewJohn deleting it. I restored to the sourced version.  Polentarion Talk 01:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * the term "Bionade-Biedermeier" is really just present in the title of one chapter in "Envisioning Social Justice in Contemporary German Culture" - the book itself makes indeed no mention of the term (apart from the title of said chapter) --ChristopheT (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right, but thats no weakness. Its far from a widespread Loanword but it gained some impact in English / American sources describing Berlin athmosphere without need for explanation. Polentarion Talk 04:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC) PS.: I adapted the wording and refered to the chapter title explicitely.
 * It is highly manipulative to cite the Shell-study the way it is cited here. Each year a new Shell-study is being published. I doubt it makes any sense at all to pick out the version of that particular year. And the current Shell-study points out that the youth is politically interested in Germany. -- NewJohn (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading sentences like "Biedermeier refers to parallels between the historical Biedermeier and the German present. Neo-Biedermeier has been used before to describe the current young generation in Germany" it seems to me the article shall bash some part of society or more concretely "the youth". I cannot see that the young generation desereves that and as said the current Shell-study proves the author of that sentence to be wrong. -- NewJohn (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The word "Bionade-Biedermeier" is used as a description of a sociocultural development. It's not based on a single newspaper article. the product Bionade became a central image for a certain neo bourgeois in the German society. Something between Bobo (Bohemian Bourgeois), Hipster and ecological aware middleclass citizen. The sources in the article reflect on the broader reception and its function as a cultural coordination point. --Jensbest (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A google news search for Bionade Biedermeier delivers just 81 results. . I wouldnt equate Biedermeier with Bourgeois and I wouldnt equate Biedermeier with Bohemian either. In the article it reads "not the Proletariat, but the Bohème became the ruling class". Does that make any sense to anyone? -- NewJohn (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete does not achieve notability - seems to be used by a specific set of Editorialists of a specific newspaper within a specific time frame around the publication of the Editorial in 2007.  --ChristopheT (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In the German article about Bio-B. most content has been erased because sources have been manipulated. I looked into the source according to which Claudia Roth supposedly "sees problematic tendencies in the social phenomenon for their own party and clientele." The source is a short text by some undisclosed author about an event at Munich Re (!). Roth apparently took part in the event. The statement about the Bio-Biedermeier is however from the unknown author and not from Roth. Seems like we are dealing here with the same sort of manipulations others dealt with before in the German article. -- NewJohn (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic of the article was highly controversial in the German community, but it stood AfD and challenge of an AfD. Here it went through standard review and DYK, I had some old hands looking on it. Over there, no kidding, lotta hate speech and active bullying over the topic in deWP. Point is, as an old hand said in one discussion, important parts of the deWP community are part of the Bionade Biedermeier, but don't want to be called like that. The IP, which tried to delete have of the content, flamed me as having written this very article for mobbing purposes. I quote the original text "Diese Überforderung führt dazu, dass sich viele Menschen in eine Art „Bionade-Biedermeier“ zurückziehen und ein ökologisch korrektes Leben ohne großes  bürgerschaftliches Engagement führen. „Wo ist der Impuls, etwas zu ändern, wo der Protest, wo der Wille, sich einzumischen“, beklagte die Bundestags-Vizepräsidentin und Mitglied der Fraktion von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (Cladia Roth)." Point is, the author tells about the Bionade-Biedermeier and cocooning tendencies. Then - next sentence -  Roth is quoted with an statement about a lack of political interest. Trittin refered to the same issue in a book, vocal reference to Bionadebiedermeier. The article currently goes  Green party officials like Jürgen Trittin and Claudia Roth see problematic tendencies in the social phenomenon for their own party and clientel. I see that as an appropriate way to cover both valid sources.  Polentarion Talk 08:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Polentarion Talk 08:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Being able to read the discussion in the German wikipedia and your reaction here, quite frankly, you are not very open to deal with criticism - to say the least. There are hundreds of thousands of such events each year by companies and it's not an interest in science that attracts the audience. Citing an undisclosed author who writes a short piece about such an event is way beyond standards. Plus please do not deny that Roth doesnt use the term and in the article it says the opposite. -- NewJohn (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The term is refered to in an report an Munich Re conferences with German political leaders. Roth has been quoted about the cocooning tendency, after being confronted with the BionadeBiedermeier. You erased a valid source, instead of improving tha actual text. Your comment on the CDU strategy paper shows a possible political bias. You made some aggressive remarks during your edits. I gave you a civility warning on your User page. Polentarion Talk 09:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The text is lightyears away from being a "report"! These are exactly the sort of manipulations I am referring to. And it's also kind of an attempt to manipulate when you are trying to "warn" me of something on my user disk. User_talk:NewJohn -- NewJohn (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but things go that way here. You started here with claiming "only one newspaper', after a friendly IP prepared the way to claim that. By deleting half of the article. You now deleted a report from Munich Re Foundation about its dialogue forum with Roth, a highstanding member of the Greens on federal level, Green Lord Mayor of Munich candidate Nallinger and Finkbeiner from Club of Rome and cofounder of the Global_Marshall_Plan_Initiative in Germany. Retreat into the Biedermeier in general was a section title, Bionade-B explicitely refered to as a problem. Its a sort of WP:I don't like it issue policy wise, and youre the one that has a problem with the topic. Thats far from being accurate, Sir. The civility warning is one of the steps before we involve sysops here. I gave you an informal one first. Polentarion Talk 09:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is really only one article in one newspaper which really makes the term Bionade-Biedermeier the headline and center of a story. All other sources may use the term somewhere but it's not central to any of the sources. In addition to this most sources are just evaluated selectively regarding their content. The author surely didnt read most of the sources from beginning to end. Instead he used everything he could find online and read only the paragraph around the buzz word. Most sources are highly doubtful which makes the article here an essay aboout a not notable term. -- NewJohn (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We got various entries already here with the term in the title. You used a sorta selective google news search, 88 doesn't equal one. But I am thankful for your interest, I wasn't aware yet that Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg had transmitted a lecture about Jörg Albrechts doctorate (Title: Vom Kohlrabi-Apostel zum Bionade-Biedermeier) in 2015. Polentarion Talk 11:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we do not need to repeat the soap drama we had on the same subject in WP:DE - my point is notability - if Bionade-Biedermaier was indeed a neologism on his way into mainstream German language - we would have seen some entries since 2007 (Duden ect.) like let's say for 'Warmduscher'. That is clearly not the case. My point being notability - nothing else - so please do not highjack my comment for a discussion that has nothing to do with my point. Thank you! --ChristopheT (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:ChristophThomas: Hope so, its been a fierce mess. Here you went on the talk page, I will do also, think we can do some fixes with superfluent entries. Albrechts doctorate is more of relevance. Its quite true that the catchy term often appears in head-lines, but not yet in the Duden. My point is that the thresholds for entries containing brand names in the Duden are higher. Polentarion Talk 11:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I looked at the arguments above and then reexamined the sourcing of the article. Numerous reliable sources are cited in which this tag phrase is used in reference to a certain group or trend. Whether the group was ever representative of German youth, whether the name is fair, and whether the trend is still current are all unimportant: the article deals with something that has been written about in reliable sources and demonstrates that this is the generally used term for it. (Yes, at least one source simply uses "Biedermeier", but most use "Bionade-Biedermeier".) It thus clears the bar for notability, and even those sources in which the term is only used once contribute to clarifying how it's used, as well as documenting its use, and should not be stripped out. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure you looked at the arguments above and reexamined...? Or did you just do a favour to a buddy who asked kindly for it User_talk:Yngvadottir "The empire strikes back on Bionade-Biedermeier....Polentarion" --87.78.133.28 (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi IP, thanks for assuming good faith; yes, I looked for myself, and also read the arguments above, before writing my argument. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The whole thing doesnt go  beyond an essay. All cited books are popular books too often politically biased. The story presented here is a fantasy of its writer. Man things from different sources which are not really related are being sampled together.-- 89.204.155.180 (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just for the record: I changed the false claim in the article that puts the outcome of the Shell-study from 2010 in context of the recent study. The recent study finds that the youth is politically interested. The author deleted that bit. And then I looked into the WP:de article on Jörg Albrecht. Here he is somehow presented as an authority in the field of analysing societal trends such as Bio-B. In reality he writes prose, theater pieces and novels. This is another example of how misleading the article is to its readers. It's not enough to look at the sources and say: Hey, the word appears in there! You have to look into the sources and then you see that this article doesnt go beyond an essay representing someones private oppinion about the phenomenon Bio-B. -- NewJohn (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Some more on the same: The author of the article added a source today which seems to state that Albrecht is lecturing on Bio-B. If you actually click on the source (please do so!) one finds out that there is a text. The text doesnt state however if Albrecht will in fact give a lecture or another form of presentation. The text also doesnt state in which event that happend or shall happen (no date either). That is just another perfect example of manipulating the reader by using random "sources". -- NewJohn (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See talk page. Waste of Time. Polentarion Talk 23:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record: First (see Strohmaier 2014), the term itself has been quoted and used often since it was coined in 2007. Second I made sure to include definitions of the term beyound and after Sußebach. ChristopheT made a valid point about the Duden. Strohmaier 2014 confirms that the term was then already integrated in the Duden Szenesprachenwiki, a sort of urban dictionary in German. The Szenesprachenwiki is currently offline. Duden has produced a printed dictionary based on selected entries. No chance to check for the term online. But I don't think that is a barrier for noteabilty. Polentarion Talk 01:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * An online wiki - which is offline - as a source of its importance! Are you serious?? -- 87.79.175.34 (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We should leave the limo-biedermeier for this other wiki then - as the wikipedia is no dictionary. The article here doesnt go beyond an article for a dictionary with a lengthy discription of who used the term at some point somewhere anyways. -- 87.79.175.34 (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The "background" of the word is according to the article here: A doctorate project of someone, a citation for internal use which got in the hands of the press, and a documentary which didn't use the terms - but according to the author here describes the phenomenon. That is not enough. -- 87.79.175.34 (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am serious. Polentarion Talk 14:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC) To quote User:Weissbier deWP Soap opera, AfD revision I believe that the main problem is the (deWP) High Society being part of Bionade-Biedermeier, wearing ugly marinières and getting licked with overpriced Manufactum gadgets. Je suis Tiger! WB! 11:48, 6. Nov. 2015 (CET)''
 * You state here that you're motivation for writing this "article" is hatred. You don't care whether you inform the reader or whether you use your source in an appropiate way. That was the reason why your account was taken offline for a month in de:wp --87.79.175.34 (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cologne IP, I have done no such statement. That's beyound any rule here, against a member of good standing of this very project. Noteability of this entry is based on valid sourcing. The AfD is not warranted by facts but seems as an act of revenge. Still the soap opera overthere. Polentarion Talk 18:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article gives very lear evidence that this is part of contemporary German culture. I do not think thearticle would have been even questioned if it  covered an English -speaking country, and the English WP is supposed to cover all the world equally. The article here is much more extensive than the deWP article, but perhaps a much larger explanation of the cutluralbackgroundis needed for English readers.  DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep also as this seems convincing enough for an article. SwisterTwister   talk  00:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nicely sourced and interesting article about a notable German neologism. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2016 (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.