Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Putinjugend

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Inherently POV title: it compares modern youth movements in Russia with the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth). Inappropriate as a redirect or disambiguation page, and I doubt it's possible to write a reliably sourced article on the term itself, so it should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. A disambiguation page does not require references. But I included three reliable sources. More can be provided if needed.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - wow, that was fast! OK, I probably should have looked for sources before nominating for deletion... oops. I'll leave this open a little longer to see if anyone else has anything to add, but if not I don't mind withdrawing this AFD. Terraxos (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please withdraw then.Biophys (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

*Redirect to Nashi (youth movement). There is no evidence (i.e. sources) in Walking Together which describe it as Putinjugend. All in all, in response to User:DonaldDuck, I think it's a funny name in that an organisation which is promoting healthy living, civic duties and above all, a Russia for Russians, is compared to Hitler, whilst an organisation which evolved out of union of Bolsheviks and skinheads, actively calls for a new Russian empire, is 5000% against American foreign policy, etc (and has a flag with resemblance to NAZI symbols) is supported by the Western media as the darlings of Russian democracy, and worse, as the future of Russia. Of course, that line the line taken by journalists (you would be hard pressed to find scholars talking about Nashi for example in such ways as journos); but then again it says more about the people themselves who make such claims, and the media industry as a whole; which on the scum-sucking scale is only slightly above lawyers. Balance out the idiotic media views with more objective analysis from scholars. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ATP, WP:NEO and WP:NOTE. DonaldDuck (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and expand on the article pages. The dab page shouldn't discuss the merits or existence of the term. As the sources indicate, Putinjugend has indeed been applied sarcastically to two organizations (and the article is therefore not ipso facto "inherently POV"); however, the use of the term should be discussed and sourced in the articles about these organizations, and not on the dab page. As a precedent, the similar term Lukamol redirects to Belarusian Republican Youth Union and is discussed there. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 11:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That should be debated at the article talk page. Any why, what's the difference between a disambig. page and redirect page? Biophys (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is easy to grasp after reading WP:REDIRECT and comparing it with WP:DISAMBIG. You will find this particular clause especially useful in promoting the point of view you are trying to communicate in this AfD (it addresses Russavia's "baby killers" question, too).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:14, December 18, 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are some notable scholarly papers and books on the topic in the German language, such as the paper by Ulrich Schmid titled "Naschi - Die Putin Jugend" published in the journal Osteuropa in 2005. Martintg (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although redirection might be tempting, it's not just Nashi and Iduscie Vmeste who go under this banner; another notable contender is Molodaya Kvardia. In summary, Putinjugend is a wider phenomenon than any specific organisation. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is only to be a disambig page, then it should be redirected as I spelled out above. If people are actually thinking of expanding it and turning it into an article, then I would be changing that to Delete as per User:DonaldDuck. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep, and expand. Putinjugend is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place. Grey Fox (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Changing my opinion to delete based on WP:ATP and WP:NEO, as it seems that editors seem to think this will become an article. Based on WP:ATP, An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject. Putinjugend is a pejorative, not to mention inflammatory, term which is used by a small minority to disparage the subject of the articles, and it is a WP:NEO. And we have editors actually calling for expansion of such a WP:NPOV term. Hell, why don't we create a disambig at Baby killer for Johnson and Nixon? Or Arse licker for John Howard (seeing as he was all but called as such)? Or on Lap dog, why don't we put at the top under "see other uses" Tony Blair? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything pejorative or disparaging in the term, it succinctly sums up the essence of these youth groups created by Putin. Martintg (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you put on your neutrality cap you would see that it is pejorative. Comparing something to Hitler or anything operated or associated to Hitler, is of course going to be pejorative. Would you agree with us adding to Inbred as a "see also" which states "This article is about the concept. For the people commonly known for inbreeding, please see Tasmanians." Would this be agreeable? As I can absolutely provide more sources making that connection, than one could for Putinjugend. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 05:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I generally dislike such titles, they may create confusion and inflame. There is no proof as of now, that the term is widely used or that some theories are created on such a topic etc. It should be expanded - based on reliable sources - or else deleted as a useless re-direct/disamb page. --Pan Miacek (t) 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is even attempted to be expanded, I will bring it straight back here as WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. In fact, the term itself should not even be a major part of the articles themselves, rather than the opinions behind why some believe it is similar. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof lies on those people, who want to keep the article. If they do not find anything, it should be deleted. If there exists a thesis about 'Hitlerjugend - Putin -Putinjugend' then it deserves an article. If there is no such theory, it merits no disamb. pages/ re-directs. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 20:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the term has been used by reliable sources to refer to more than one group, so disambiguation is needed. And by the way, nothing in WP:FN or WP:MOSDAB indicates footnotes are to be excluded from disambiguation pages. - Biruitorul Talk 20:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to Walking Together, I can find no emergence of reliable sources referring to that organisation as Putinjugend. Blogs and the like do not count for such purposes. I can find exactly 0 book and scholar sources which use the WP:NEO to describe Walking Together. And basically the same for the same terms, but in Russian. In fact, the entire Walking Together article doesn't use a single reference, and doesn't even mention the term. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I included the source.Biophys (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have included a single source, which by the way does not refer to Walking Together, but rather refers to Nashi as Putinjugend. Even if it were mentioned in the source, the use of the term by a single source is not enough to have the WP:NEO on WP. Read WP:NEO. If you think this is valid, I would ask you, and I am seriously asking you whether you are going to create a disambig page for Baby killer which leads to both Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon, as there are sources for it. Sources for Johnson -- Google news, Google books, and Google Scholar. In addition, you can create a redirect to Vietnam veterans for the term Baby killers. Sources for that, Google news, Google books and Google scholar. Are you going to be WP:BOLD and create these? And it is a serious question, as there are more sources which make that connection, than for Putinjugend. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 05:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - POV attribution used as a redirect or disambig, similar to Chimp user as a redirect to George Bush or Big Satan as a redirect to USA, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know any sources about "Chimp", but mentioning Big Satan as a pejorative expression for the US is perfectly fine, and I just included it. Same thing with Putinjugend.Biophys (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The term is Great Satan, and I have reverted your addition. Any chance, you will create Baby killer and its plural any time soon? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 11:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Baby killer should redirect to Putin right? Grey Fox (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would it be? Google News returns a single result, in which the Chechen terrorists responsible for Beslan are called baby killers. Google Books returns a single result, that being a fiction book. Google scholar returns 144 results, of which not a single result related to Vladimir Putin, as it is picking up results for the terms "baby killer" and "put in". So based on these results, shouldn't baby killer be a redirect to Chechen Republic of Ichkeria? But of course, you wouldn't do that now would you? Stop being a WP:DICK, because whilst you may find the term funny, and laugh everytime, what this discussion has done has shown the hypocrisy of certain editors, yourself included, who are so willing to vote keep for a neologism which is used by a dozen or so sources only, and not only want to keep, but want to expand it. Yet, not a single one of you are willing to create a redirect for Baby killers to Vietnam veterans and Baby killer to Lyndon B. Johnson, even though this is well documented by thousands of sources (not a dozen!) as being used by the anti-Vietnam war movement to describe both parties. The POV-pushing ways of several editors have now shone thru. You guys are the ones who voted to keep and expand, and have proceeded to treat this as an article. However, in doing so, you have all forgotten to read WP:V, in that material added needs to be referenced, and it is the WP:BURDEN of people who wish to insert information to ensure it is referenced, because unreferenced materials can be removed. I remove Walking Together because reliable sources out there do not refer to it as that term, yet the unreferenced addition of that name is reverted by a POV-pusher. Not only do they re-insert that, but also include another term, unreferenced, based upon their own POV, hatred and biases. True Colors is a great song, don't you think? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Russian forces bombed a school full of children in a false attempt to liberate them, and Putin took responsibility for it, so it might as well apply to him? And then there's the thousands of other children that died in the Caucasus such as here. You're the one who started accusing people to be known by opponents as "baby killers", so It's only fair for me to point out that, according to some opponents, that's the same for your favourite hero Vladimir Putin. The same goes for the terrorists in Beslan of course, but for some reason you think the terrorists represent the entire Chechen Republic. That makes no sense unless one would apply Racism. Grey Fox (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also chill out. Calling "us" hypocrites and pov pushers is completely against WP:AGF. And just to make it clear, "putinjugend" is a term that describes a certain movement. "baby killers" is something anti-war activists have used for pretty much every war ever. Grey Fox (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And now we seem to be getting somewhere. I see a direct correlation between linking Putin as a baby killer, and Putinjugend being a common term, not only for Nashi, but for other groups also. There is not a single reliable source (in English mind you) which calls Putin a baby killer. Your claims above are your own POV and OR/SYN. There is not a single source which backs you up on that point. However, I do have a source which makes the connection; however, it is the opinion of an extremely small minority and needs to be discounted outright -- of course, I am making this statement by using a single search term. Although I did stuff up, I did actually mean to link to Basayev instead, as it was him who was being directly inferred about. Now if you transplant it to this neologism, look at the results -- Talk:Putinjugend. The book and scholar sources are what is particularly important (due to web searches being full of blogs links and such). All-in-all, what I am trying to do is to get you all to look at this with a critical mind. I would never start Baby killer, as it is clearly against policy, and its the policy which has to drive us, not our own POV and biases; my suggestion of creating a redirect for baby killer/s was done to show people are going to some extraordinary lengths to keep something using flimsy reasoning, and even flimsier sources, yet none is willing to create something for which there is great evidence of...and we are talking of neologisms here. All I have seen from some editors is their pushing of their own POV without adhering to policy; misrepresentation of sources, disregarding of WP:V, engaging in WP:OR and/or WP:SYN, etc, etc. I have seen two editors in recent times indef blocked and banned for a year for such things. I am not accusing you in particular Grey-Fox mind you, so don't see it as such. That's all I've got to say anyway, this can all rest on its merits now. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I really can't agree with you (I'm glad you've corrected that link to Basayev though). Putinjugend is not a term you have to embrace. There's similar new terms that not everybody embraces, such as Islamophobia and/or Islamofascism. The comparison to "baby killers" is really primitive. This is not the place though, if you want to hear my arguments you may use my talk page. Grey Fox (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment from the nominator - unfortunately, it's too late for me to withdraw this (as other people have now argued for deletion). However, I've been convinced the word is notable, and think this content is worth keeping. But there seems to be some objection to having this as a separate page - so perhaps the best solution would be to merge it into a subsection of Hitlerjugend (into a 'modern comparisons' section, for instance)? That seems like it would solve all of the problems that have been raised with the article, without losing the content. Terraxos (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, see also my comments to "Weak keep" below, as I seem to have the same concerns as you: notable info, but prefer to have it included in a larger article. But, although I think Hitlerjugend can mention Putinjugend, I believe the proper place of Putinjugend is Political neologisms. Dc76\talk 15:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge useful information into suitable sections of articles on those movements (see Terraxos's suggestion above).--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Why is Walking Together being re-added to this so-called disambig page? If you guys want to treat it as a disambig page, then fine, let's treat it as a disambig page. I have already demonstrated out that pejorative term is not used to refer to any other group other than Nashi. To everyone who is saying keep, I expect them to come up with reliable sources which show that the use of this WP:NEO is widespread in describing these other groups. As User:Miacek so rightly points out, WP:BURDEN is on you guys (this means Martintg, Biophys, Digwuren, etc). Because in all of the sources which have been provided, only Nashi is referred to, pejoratively, as Putinjugend. It is your own hatred, biases and POV which is allowing you to add other groups, without supplying a single source; and it isn't a single source which is needed, but a multitude of sources which refer to these other groups in that way. And as I have mentioned, Walking Together doesn't even make mention of this pejorative neologism, and is in fact totally unreferenced anyway. You are being called out on this one guys. And by the way, if I should see in any article Putinjugend actually being linked to, it will be immediately removed by myself, as the name of the organisation should be linked to, not the uncommon pejorative neologism. And I don't suspect any of you guys will answer my absolute valid questions above either. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 11:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The scholarly paper by Ulrich Schmid goes into some detail about Walking Together, they being the pre-cursor to Nashi. It was Walking Together that originally got the name "Putinjugend" in the popular press back in the early 2000's because they use to wear t-shirts with Putin's portrait on it. Ofcourse the term isn't entirely pejorative, many German authors see the movement as a "faschistische Führerkult" and thus view the comparison to Hitlerjugend as a valid one. Martintg (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) A note on German usage: some google hits, esp. the version Putin-Jugend might perhaps be understood as just Putin Youth, i.e. reference to the youth with strong loyalty to Putin but not necessarily a parallel to Hitlerjugend (which, I believe, is generally spelled as one word).--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Any chance Martin et al, of dealing with this. Because English usage of the term, especially for Walking Together is non-existent, and I would expect other languages to be exactly the same. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Nashi, per those meager sources that have so far been provided. If and when any sources supporting that this term is used to refer to any other groups surface later, then the redirect can be overwritten with a disambig page (which will be subject to disambig page guidelines, mind you).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:14, December 18, 2008 (UTC)
 * This scholarly paper by Schmid discusses Walking Together as the original "Putinjugend". Martintg (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a great source that could be of great use... in the German Wikipedia. This, however, is the English edition of Wikipedia, so a neologism like this one better be backed with sources in English.  Calqueing a term directly from German into English is simply an illustration of original research.  It's kind of like saying that we should create the putintsy and puting articles, just because both words are used in Russian.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:51, December 18, 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Evident neologism. Also per Jimbo, quoted at WP:UNDUE "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. ".Xasha (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the publications like The Times, The Boston Globe, The Weekly Standard, Der Spiegel and Newsweek International represented a "extremely small minority", I thought they were mainstream publications. Martintg (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the English language sources mention very clear that the term is used by controversial politician Valeria Novodvorskaya and "some Russian liberals" (which very probably refers to the same Opposition party leader). Those newspapers don't assume the term as their own, as shouldn't Wikipedia. The opinions should be attributed to their originators in the articles about Nashi and other organization criticized as such, and not imposed as an encyclopedic subject. As for the German sources (which anyway don't have any relevance for use in English), as someone mentioned above, in German that may mean simply "Putin's youths", without the clear Nazi connotation the term "Putinjugend" has in English. Also, the Times doesn't mention the term at all, (not Putinjugend, nor Putin's Youth), so that surce is clearly misused in the article and should be removed.Xasha (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Why am I not surprised that Valeria Novodvorskaya is behind the usage of the term. Does this now mean that at Democrat, we put a link to Shamil Basayev, after all, this is a term she used to describe him, and which caused her to be banned from Echo Moskvy (for one to get banned from EM, you would join a club which can be counted on one hand - they allow all views (sane and nutty). The use of the word democrat to describe Basayev was also carried by media. The fact that she has used the term, is evidence enough that it is a pejorative term. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In typical KGB/FSB fashion you're trying to discredit Novodvorskaya's career by finding an old quote of her and taking it out of context. Novodvorskaya actually said that Basayev was a terrorist, but that he used to be a democrat, which could technically be correct since he was a candidate in the 1997 post-war free and fair chechen democratic elections. Grey Fox (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note For those who don't really know what these youth movements are, here is a video report about them. Grey Fox (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Observation Youth in the US have a long history of not exercising their political rights and not being politically active, and this year in the US presidential election the youth came out in unprecedented numbers; this was described in the western media by words such as "refreshing". Youth in Russia also have a long history of not exercising those same rights, yet when they do so on a much more organised basis, this is described in the western media as "frightening". A video such as this would be described by the western media as "cute". Have the same kids singing a song in Russian about Putin, and it would be called "indoctrination". There is a point to this, put the word Putinjugend into Google and see how many results one gets. Then put the word Obamajugend into Google, and see if you too get a few hundred more results than its Putin counterpart, and he hasn't even been a day in office yet....perhaps once there has been time to write books and scholars to do their own analysis on the US elections, perhaps another group will be back here arguing about the type of topic. :) --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comparison is a typical soviet style or modern-day russia style attempt to make something appear less than it really is, in my own language there's a word dedicated to this. The term putinjugend has an extra 7,480 hits in Russian. "Obamajugend" isn't used seriously by respected scholars or journalists, but by kids on the internet mostly as a joke. There's also no organized "Obama Youth" of completely indoctrinated people getting payed by the government to worship the government. Grey Fox (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this really relevant to anything? If you want to create an article called "Obamajugend" go right ahead. Martintg (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment, as regards the claim of neologism, "Nashi" is more of a neologism than "Putinjugend", since the term "Nashi" only came into English after 2005, while "Putinjugend" was initially used to refer to the Walking Together group that existed since 2000. Martintg (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Stats on usage In reference to Martintg's post immediately above this (from the talk page)....

Regardless of whether a source can be found which would qualify Walking Together in being included in this list, it has to be dealt with as per WP:UNDUE.

A Google search of "Walking Together"+Russia returns the following results.... It needs to be noted with this particular search term may include such results as "Walking together down the street in Russia", although a check of the first 20 pages of results reveals that almost all refer to the subject in discussion here.
 * Web search - 46,100
 * News search - 525
 * Books search - 631
 * Scholar search - 760

A Google search of "Walking Together"+Russia+Putinjugend returns the following results.... It needs to be noted with this particular search term, in many of the instances that I found, Walking Together was mentioned in the article, but so was Nashi, and it was Nashi which is referred to as Putinjugend, so these figures are going to be somewhat lower than shown above.
 * Web search - 256
 * News search - 3
 * Books search - 0
 * Scholar search - 0

A Google search of "Walking Together"+Russia+"Putin Youth" returns the following results.... It needs to be noted with this particular search term, "Putin Youth" is mostly returning results for the term "Pro-Putin youth movement", so on the face of it, these results would likely be lower than with Putinjugend in its place.
 * Web search - 763
 * News search - 54
 * Book search - 5
 * Scholar search - 7

Now, WP:UNDUE states:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Do I have to lay the math out to show that the linking of this term to Walking Together is done by an extremely small minority. Doing the math, using only Putinjugend results, and assuming all links are accurate for what we want, only 0.55% of web sources refer to Walking Together as Putinjugend; news results is 0.57%, and the Book and Scholar sources, well they speak for themselves.

If anyone can demonstrate that these terms are used by a majority, or even a significant minority (let's say 10% shall we?), there is no reason for it to stay. Otherwise, it has to be removed as per WP:UNDUE.

Now to Nashi and it being described as Putinjugend....


 * News - 1,190 for Nashi + Youth
 * News - 9 for Nashi + Youth + Putinjugend


 * Books - 628 for Nashi + Youth
 * Books - 0 for Nashi + Youth + Putinjugend


 * Scholar - 655 for Nashi + Youth
 * Scholar - 0 for Nashi + Youth + Putinjugend

The results are clear, really aren't they? It's a non-notable WP:NEO and to have any page or even redirect devoted to it, given the extremely minute usage is to go against WP:UNDUE. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Google search for "Putinjugend" gives 6.800 hits. Thus, it is justified as a disambig. page and perhaps even as a standalone article.Biophys (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do a search for "putinjugend -blog -wiki -wikipedia -livejournal -youtube" and that figure more than halves. Nashi + youth returns 46,000 results. I've already demonstrated that the vast majority refer to Nashi, and assuming that all 3,000 Putinjugend and 46,000 Nashi + Youth sources are WP:RS, would still only give you 6.5% of course which refer to Nashi as Putinjugend. That fits in with If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. - WP:UNDUE. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 00:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * However the guideline also states: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;, I can easily name Valeria Novodvorskaya as a prominent adherent (being notable enough to warrant her own Wikipedia article means she can be considered prominent), you assertion that it is "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" is patently false. Martintg (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Joe the Plumber also has an Wikipedia article and is arguably more prominent, but we keep his personal opinions in his article, we don't create new articles about those views. Similarly "Putinjugend" may be mentioned when talking about criticism of Nashi or views of Novodvorskaya, but it isn't an encyclopedic topic per se, so it doesn't merit an article. Nor even a redirect or disambiguation, because this could open the door to tons of disambiguation for other epithets (every country leader and most important organizations have at least one that can be sourced to opinion pieces in reliable newspapers) Xasha (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to WP:Redirect, alternative names, general pseudonyms, nicknames, and synonyms are legitimate redirects, it even gives the example of Butcher of Kurdistan redirecting to Ali Hassan al-Majid. So Putinjugend is a legitimate redirect to both Walking Together and Nashi (Ours), hence the need for a disambiguation page. Martintg (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Butcher of Beirut also redirects to Ariel Sharon. Grey Fox (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Note, that there is Category:Political neologisms. Normally, I would prefer this article to be merged into Neologism, but that's only a list. So unless that list is transformed into text (one sentence per entry), the article is to stay. In medium or long term, I suggest to move "Politics" section of Neologism into a separate article, and consider if it is worth merging all those articles (from the list) into one. So, my oppinion (unless somebody persuades me that something else is better) is keep for short term, and merge for long term, which I render as weak keep. Dc76\talk 15:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. It's a wellknown term and it's not up to Wikipedia to decide if it's a correct naming of some Russian youth movements or not. Närking (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Plain neologism like demshizoid and eSStonia. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * eSStonia refers to a whole country, putinjugend only to the mass youth groups funded by a political party. Grey Fox (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's exactly the same thing. It seems this AfD will be decided more by position towards Russian actions in Georgia and personal feelings towards Putin than by WP policies.Xasha (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's completely different. Also there's people who used to follow Russian politics before the conflict in Georgia you know. Grey Fox (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to inform Xasha: I have followed Soviet/Russian politics since the 1980s so don't try to involve the war in Georgia into this. Närking (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasures. Elysander (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This term is used in mass media. Besides, the article seems to be well sourced. --Hillock65 (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (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.