Deletion of Woozle effect

Comment: I thought some more about this, and unfortunately this can't quite merged with confirmation bias. There is only one book which even discusses them close together http://books.google.ro/books?id=nUyyvmz-Z0UC&pg=PA4, but without saying they are the same or even what their relative relationship might be. The examples section is unfortunately all sourced from the primary sources actually using the term (rather than any secondary sources observing that others use the term), which is generally discouraged by . The people theorizing about the woozle effect are generally also those using it as a rhetorical instrument (to smack their opposition), so we can't easily separate primary and secondary sources. There are some exceptions to this, for example the ''Father-Daughter Relationships'' book I've linked in this paragraph only cautions about the woozle effect in general, but doesn't target it at any one issue in particular either on that page or anywhere else in the book (using that term anyway.) On the the other hand, if we remove all the examples, all that's left is basically a  and some thin theorizing as to what it relates to. Its use in a few different sub-fields of social science (human trafficking, domestic violence) probably qualifies this for  in some way.  We do have a somewhat similar article called just-so story, which is based on a fairly similar choice of sources (mostly users of the term
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:DICTDEF||WP:GNG)

Comment: The nominator did have some points, although asking this to be deleted per MOS/ was seriously misguided. The actual points/concerns are that (1) while this topic does come up in a fair number of publication over the last three decades (2) most have only brief coverage of it, at the level of a sentence or two, e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=BYSRXcCjP-UC&pg=PA687 http://books.google.com/books?id=74gyVSJhg5oC&pg=PA84. Scarcity of in-depth coverage (empirical studies of this effect) basically leaves this page at the level of  + mostly anecdotal evidence. There are a couple of "surveys" like the one from the Vera Institute of Justice, but these were not published to study the effect simply from a psychological perspective, but rather to argue it exists in a specific field of study/publications in order to advance their own agenda in that area: "This trend underscores the general neglect of methodology in research on human trafficking." (The VIS study is part of larger self-published report, submitted to the DOJ, although it was financially supported by a NIJ grant.) I think the article is going to have hard-to-solve  issues as a result of that. The 1953 "Modern psychologists: scientific woozle hunters? An opinion in outline." seems to have exactly one citation in Google Scholar (and that is a self-citation in the author's subsequent publication http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/65/1/34/), so I wouldn't hold by breath as to its value to the field. And if you think Donald G. Dutton doesn't have an agenda, you should read a summary of his research findings http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-86.htm here, which starts with "Lesbian battering is more frequent than heterosexual battering." (That finding of his is often quoted on counter-feminist blogs.) Or listen for couple of minutes to him speaking http://vimeo.com/11113971 here: his main research seems to be overcoming/replacing the Duluth model
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:JARGON||WP:DICTDEF||WP:NPOV)