Deletion of Covert hypnosis

Comment: Poorly written article with what might be original research (the cites are books that I don't own...) but the topic itself is notable enough for inclusion.  The term itself gets over 50k ghits (none are noted on the page) so this is a matter of the article needing improving, mainly trimming out the fat.  As for the nom (nothing personal), it is flawed in that  says that published books can be used for sources in most cases (which the article uses for sources), and  says that the information must be ''verfiable'' and not ''verified''.  Needs work, not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)