Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institutionalized Riot Systems

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. The general opinion here is that the sources provided by Notecardforfree are sufficient. That being said, there is also agreement here that the article needs serious editorial work. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Institutionalized Riot Systems

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

WP:NEOLOGISM. KDS4444^Talk 07:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there going to be any voting, if this article will be kept or not. May I know the reason why this article is nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Deletion_policy ? I have already provided the reference to the work of the author who invented this term. In future I will further expand it by providing appropriate references. Bhvintri (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needs work (perhaps even WP:TNT), but this does appear to be a concept that haas received coverage in reliable sources (see, for example, this book, this book, this book, and this book). Bhvintri, if you are the author of this page, you should incorporate the sources I cited in the previous sentence (per WP:V) and you should restructure the article pursuant to MOS:LAYOUT. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy to find discussions of this theory on G-Scholar. Still considered new and all still mention the originator, but it's getting attention. Article needs to add some of the discussion (pro and con). LaMona (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about the book which introduced the theory: The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India. The topic adds to the notability of the book, but I fail to see its use as a stand-alone article. Dimadick (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, a standalone article for this topic is appropriate because the concept of "institutionalized riot systems" was developed in a series of articles and studies that predate the publication of The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India. See, for example, this 2001 article (tracing its origin to a 1998 study) and this 1998 article that discusses Brass' theory (note: subscription required). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Afd is not a clean-up service. notable subject, article needs to be improved but clearly plenty of sources are available.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 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. WP:NEOLOGISM 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.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, WP:NEO also states that "when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic". Many of the sources cited in this discussion talk about the article (rather than merely using the term), which WP:NEO identifies as one of the prerequisites for a standalone article about relatively new terms (see, e.g., this book, which analyzes the concept). Furthermore, other scholars (such as Ashutosh Varshney) have used the term outside the context of Brass' works (see, e.g., this 2012 book at p.22, citing Varshney's comparison between "institutionalized peace systems" and "institutionalized riot systems"). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Varshney mirrors Brash's focus on institutional production of Hindu-Muslim violence in India. I have looked at sources, and what I see is a number of authors, mostly on India, discussing Brash's model. What I do not see is much use or adoption of this term by scholars as a model to analyze conflicts and riots elsewhere, or even analysis that goes beyond repeating Brash's description.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 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 WP:NEO does not apply. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - 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 WP:NEO 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 18 January 2016 (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.