Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deviancy amplification spiral

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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deviancy amplification spiral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any valid sources that indicate that this term is important in sociology. It appears to be a neologism created by Stanley Cohen in his book. Google brings up sources that are mostly based on the Wikipedia article, or else don't meet RS. Google Scholar turns up quite a few mentions, but mostly trivial and in the form of "X is an example of a deviancy amplification spiral, where Y" I see very little in-depth discussion of what it is or why it is relevant. Of course, there may be some good sources out there. If notability can be demonstrated, i'll withdraw the AFD. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ~100 hits on Google Books, seem notable enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I see evidence for deviancy amplification spiral everyday, on tv and in real life. Such as drug use and trends amongst teenagers. I believe it is definately notable enough. Portillo (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of Google Scholar and Google Books hits establish that this is indeed a term with an established meaning in sociology, used by people other than its originator. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.