Deletion of Institutionalized Riot Systems

Comment: although I do see discussion of the term on g-scholar, it's not a lot for a term put forward in a 2004 book, and, a term that, according to comments above, was used in even earlier articles.  More to the point, even where it is  discussed, it is the context of discussion of the originator's book.    applies because the gauge to judge whether a neologism is working it that it is being picked up by other scholars and applied to new contexts.  I see no indication that this term is being used outside of the narrow context in which it was put forward by the term's originator
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM)

Comment: The sources provided by Notecardforfree demonstrate that the subject "institutionalized riot systems" has been analyzed by independent reliable sources. It has been discussed directly and in detail, and the sources are ''about'' the term instead of merely using it, so  does not apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: This article needs work (perhaps even ), but this does appear to be a concept that haas received coverage in reliable sources (see, for example, https://books.google.com/books?id=BRf9AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA27 this book, https://books.google.com/books?id=-QjKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA25 this book, https://books.google.com/books?id=num2I4NFGqIC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217 this book, and https://books.google.com/books?id=9jFEAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA150 this book
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: While I understand E.M.Gregory's point, I think that the citations provided by Notecardforfree show that it barely passes the notability criteria. The  argument for deletion is well thought out, but the issue I have with it is that simply because the term hasn't been used outside of India (or rarely), doesn't warrant non-inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)