Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lima Syndrome


 * 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. Nja 247 13:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lima Syndrome

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Purportedly an opposite to Stockholm syndrome, this turns up very little in pretty much every google search despite the inciting incident having occurred more than a decade ago. Google books gets 6 hits, only one substantive, which cites no references. Google scholar turns up two hits, only one of which appears relevant, and it is not about Lima syndrome, it just mentions it. Google news turns up one hit in Korean. Straight up google turns up wikipedia first, then a series of unreliable sources with no references (urban dictionary, listverse, a wiki, deviantart and some wikipedia mirrors. This does not appear to be a scholarly concept, or even a popular one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The lack of references in the one substantial Google Book hit you mentioned could be due to the fact that pages 153 and 154 (right at the spot where they should be) are not included in the preview (other articles in that book do list refs, so it's unlikely the full book doesn't have any for this one).- Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The section discussing the sole instance of lima syndrome in the book starts on page 148 and only has one reference to Kim, 1998, not next to the mention of lima syndrome. It's possible that Kim 1998 is to a scholarly volume but I'm not going to dig into the google results that turns up to try to substantiate the reference :) I'm guessing it's a news story referring to the Peru incident and doesn't discuss lima syndrome specifically.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Even if the 1998 reference is scholarly, that still makes this a narrowly used neologism. Gigs (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 6 references are still 6 references, and they date back long enough to not be a contemporary new word. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The given references are reliable Rirunmot (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep/Merge: I am convinced by the references that this is an established term, and that Korean article, though inspecific, is a secondary source covering the establishment of the neologism as a valid term in Korean, which makes me presume the term is established in English as well. A weak argument to defeat WP:Avoid neologisms, but I think it might be sufficient. That said, the sourcing is weak for a term like this, so perhaps for now a brief mention at Stockholm Syndrome would be appropriate as an alternative? Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I found source I don't see above, which may be either a primary or secondary source (I didn't look that hard). Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.