Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture bonding (3rd nomination)

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 merge to Stockholm syndrome. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capture bonding

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

Procedural nomination. Per this DRV, the last AfD for this article is too old to comfortably be considered consensus on the issue. As seen here, the previous deletion rationale may no longer apply, though the article has not been updated to reflect this. lifebaka++ 23:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Stockholm syndrome: this is quite clearly simply a particular evolutionary explanation of the psychological processes behind the Stockholm syndrome. In order to comply with NPOV the evolutionary explanation needs to be discussed together with its competing explanative frameworks - this is obviously best done at Stockholm syndrome which is by far the most common name for this particular psychological phenomenon - the fact that Evolutionary psychologists apparently call the phenomenon by a different name is irrelevant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge to Stockholm syndrome: Maunus is entirely incorrect and has an axe to grind for reasons unrelated to this article (although we can safely assume Hanlon's razor applies). Slartibartfastibast (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a concept is mentioned in sources does not establish notability - sources have to be about the concept, not just mention it in passing as all of these sources do. Please refrain from casting aspersions regarding the motivations of other editors. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:35, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is stuff like this always a struggle?: It's really weird. Do people actually think this isn't a real thing; or are we just waiting for psychologists to accept it? They don't seem to take kindly to the idea that humans evolved. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Stockholm syndrome#Evolutionary explanations. That paragraph already contains the germ of this idea and could be expanded. I think information about this concept could be added to Bride kidnapping also. Slartibartfast, it would help if you could frame your arguments in terms of Wikipedia policies. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stick to reality, sorry :( Slartibartfastibast (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2011 (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.