Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend (3rd nomination)

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 delete. from the discussion there was a clear consensus not to keep this but the problem with the merge option is the consensus that this isn't sourced tp detailed sourced. This essentially means that we have no sourced material to merge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putinjugend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

The last AfD's for this article saw heavy involvement from members of the WP:EEML, hence I am bringing this back to AfD now for re-discussion. Essentially, the main problem is that it is documenting a WP:FRINGE neologism. It is also using German sources, in which the meaning of the word in German does not necessarily match what the article states. There are also problems on WP:UNDUE as documented at Talk:Putinjugend#Walking_Together_listed_is_WP:UNDUE. Moves to a neutral term (i.e. Pro-Kremlin youth movement) has been rejected, and editors have used the article to write criticism of groups whom detractors refer to as Putinjugend. What can be said about this term is said - it is a pejorative neologism used as a slur to refer to a number of groups by a minute number of sources. Instead of moving to Pro-Kremlin youth movement as was previously tried, and as documented at Talk:Putinjugend#Moved_to_.22Pro-Kremlin_youth_movement.22, I am bringing this back to AfD, so it can be discussed yet again. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect salvageable info and sources to Nashi (youth movement) and/or Pro-Kremlin youth movement. "Putinjugend" is not a valid title—the word is a neologism not established in the English language. Not to mention the fact that this article can't possibly provide anything beyond the scope of "Nashi"; nor is the title neutral.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 25, 2010; 19:44 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, as the nominator does not give any valid reasons for deletion. Article is very well referenced (Find sources above gives many more), the concept is actively used and often described; not only in news but also in books and scholarly sources. I do not understand why one German source, discussing the phenomenon in detail, is mentioned in the nomination - especially as even cursory reading of said source makes it clear that the article is about meaning of the Putinjugend described in the article. I also would like to remind the nominator that AfD's are closed based on arguments, not votes - and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. --Sander Säde 07:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, this German source does not discuss the concept in detail, it described Nashi (youth movement) in detail. In fact, the term Putinjugend is mentioned in that article a total number of two times - once in the title of the article, and once where it is written Der Gemeinsame Weg erwarb in der Berichterstattung der Massenmedien bald den Beinamen "Putin-Jugend", weil die Aktivisten in der Regel T-Shirts mit einem Putin-Porträt tragen. Basically, what you are trying to advocate is the writing of an article on Pro-Kremlin youth movements or on Nashi, based upon a fringe term. One does not write an article on Saakashvili with a title of Fucking lunatic[1], and there is no reason that this should be an exception. It is a fringe neologism, as I have clearly demonstrated by way of Google search results, and that alone is reason enough for deletion, as we do not document neologisms on Wikipedia. You claim that scholarly sources describe the concept in detail - can you please choose one from any of these sources which describe Putinjugend in great detail, instead of describing Pro-Kremlin youth movements in great detail, with a note that detractors of those organisations refer to them in a derogatory way at Putinjugend. The fact is, there are none. And I have checked. Refer to Wikipedia:GOOGLE#What_a_search_test_can_do.2C_and_what_it_can.27t if you are going to claim that something is notable, especially the part titled Search engines cannot:. I don't nominate anything for deletion on frivolous grounds, and my arguments and evidence more than demonstrate that this so-called article is documenting a non-notable neologism, and hence it should be deleted. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 09:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I can see a long detailed discussion of the origin of the concept in the article, with a whole sections dedicated to Putin cult and relations to (anti-)fascism, including descriptions of several youth movements - to which the quotation you provided applies.

"It is a fringe neologism, as I have clearly demonstrated by way of Google search results" - I wonder how come scientists, writers and journalists haven't picked up it to be a neologism. The term has been in use since 2002, with latest sources from 2010, so eight years of active use of "neologism"? And since Nashi (youth movement) was created in 2005, how could various pre-2005 sources describe Nashi as Putinjugend?!

Please also note that you are violating your interaction ban, Russavia.

--Sander Säde 09:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a comment on "last AfD's for this article saw heavy involvement from members of the WP:EEML", out of 18 users commenting, five were related to EEML - and one supported deletion, three wanted the article kept and one did not support any position. "Heavy" involvement indeed... --Sander Säde 09:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge in the criticism section of Nashi (youth movement). The term is a marginal neologism, not adopted by mainstream media, so doesn't even deserve a redirect. A note about the use of the term in the article about the movement is OK, however an article is giving undue weight to the POV of those criticising it.Anonimu (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Ezhiki. Colchicum (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 1) This cannot be merged to Pro-Kremlin youth movement because it actually is a fork of this, and the wikipedia licence requires that the editing history is preserved, which is why that fork instead should be merged to this earlier article. 2) I see that Putinjugend as term is used in some publications and is over the threshold of notable. This article should not be deleted. Maed (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to criticism section of Nashi (youth movement) per Ezhiki. --DonaldDuck (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge per Anonimu's reasoning supported by others. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the neologism did not received significant coverage in the media. What we have in the sources is just a trivial mention (certain youth movements are labeled as Putinjugend). The rest of the article is criticism of those movements and original research (so far there is no secondary source claimimg that "Putin youth" is directly made form Putinyugend). --Blacklake (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. More specifically, a quote: To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. It could be used often, but given nearly nonexistent literature about the neologism one can conclude that it is just not notable. Criticism of the organizations, on the other hand, is quite notable and belongs to the corresponding articles. (Igny (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep Use of the term in a title is significant use. And looking atthe actual sources, at least some do discuss the term. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: at least some do discuss the term. You probably mean that some sources "mention the term in passing" (Igny (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2010 (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.