Deletion of Putinjugend (3rd nomination)

Comment: salvageable info and sources to Nashi (youth movement) and/or Pro-Kremlin youth movement.  "Putinjugend" is not a valid title&mdash;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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: 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'' {{plainlink|url=http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2006-06-12-schmidu-de.html|name=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  is not a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)