Deletion of Neofeudalism (2nd nomination)

Comment: I've been asked for a clarification of my position on this topic. Here goes. "Neofeudalism" is not a valid analytical concept. Much like left wing fascism it is a contradiction of terms and its use is strictly as a pejorative. Feudalism was a social and economic system that predated capitalism; dredging up the archaic word, hooking a "new" on the front, and using it as a slag against the right wing is an exercise in polemics. "Oh, they want a king and a few lords and a mass of serfs, just like the middle ages — neener neener!" Writing it up like it is a valid analytical concept and tagging on a few footnotes doesn't make a circle square. Now, don't get me wrong, this is '''''exactly''''' the same politicized bullshit behind left-wing fascism — which is apt to be kept on the basis of mass  arguments and a shallow close. Same deal though — it is a pejorative used in the contemporary political environment by one team against the other as an attempt to link the opponents with a historical evil. There is no such thing either as left-wing fascism or neofeudalism outside of the POV-laden polemics of talking heads. I voted for delete there. And I'm voting for delete here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Neofeudalism" is a pejorative term increasingly used in ordinary discourse, and occasionally in scholarship, but not with any consistent meaning (it is used for everything ranging from South African Apartheid-era rural policies to modern US wealth disparities), so there doesn't seem to be an actual topic for this article. The current poor state of the article (almost entirely unreferenced |OR) reflects this. - Special:Contributions/202.124.72.192|202.124.72.192
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: The issue is not whether neofeudalism is a "valid analytical concept"; that's not for us to decide, per . Rather, the issue is whether the term is in widespread enough use to be notable, and whether its use can be documented with |reliable sources. If the term is used frequently in the published academic literature, then it counts as notable; Carrite's arguments are certainly valid criticisms of the concept, and it may very well be a highly-contested and controversial theoretical model, but that doesn't mean it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Here, there are citations to the work of multiple academic criminologists (including Lucia Zedner) in which the term is used and discussed. The lead section could probably be reworded for NPOV, to make clear that it's a term used in the work of specific scholars rather than a universally-accepted concept; and if there are scholars critiquing the concept, mentions of their work belong in the article too. But as far as I can see, there are enough sources here to demonstrate that the term is in widespread use in the academic criminological literature, so I'd say it probably passes the threshold for inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:RS)