Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neofeudalism (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Walton, 11:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NPOV||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)