Deletion of Evolutionary psychoanalysis

Comment: The article is notable, as it describes a theory concerning which Daniel Kriegman has published papers in peer-reviewed journals.  The article could easily be brought into conformance with Wikipedia:Verifiability and  by adding the citations to the relevant research referenced in Daniel_Kriegman#Articles.  Note that the term "evolutionary psychoanalysis" never appears in the list of published articles -- however, articles such as the one cited below apparently relate to the theory described in the article. The article might need some adjustment to bring it into conformance with , but that, by itself, does not justify deletion. Kriegman, D. (1990). Compassion and altruism in psychoanalytic theory: An evolutionary analysis of self psychology. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 18, 2, 342-367  (I have not yet verified this reference, which I am quoting from Daniel_Kriegman#Articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: without prejudice to recreation unless sourced -- on the page, mind you, as per , and not in offers of lists of publications. '''Keep and cleanup''' otherwise. I searched PsycINFO and found several peer-reviewed articles and book chapters by Kriegman and others, some of which do indeed talk about this topic. A search for evolutionary psychoanalysis reveals some peer-reviewed articles and chapters by others (Smith, D. L. 1999; Gilbert, P. & Bailey, K. G., 2000). So, it does appear to have recognition in the psychoanalytic literature. Discussions on whether psychoanalysis is valid aside, I think this article ''if properly sourced'' is appropriate to keep, though its tone and possibly self-promoting nature probably aren't. With sources including some that don't involve the author cited (which I'm not going to fetch more than I have, not being a fan of psychoanalysis ;) ), this article could be kept and cleaned up. Otherwise, it probably needs to be deleted without prejudice to recreation and started over. Just to clarify, to me (as a psychologist), if all the papers involving a field come from the same set of people, and those are the same people writing it up for Wikipedia, it screams self-promotion of a concept that's possibly failed in the literature. If other people are writing articles on the theory that can be cited, however, it supports the claim that the theory is getting real support
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:REF)

Comment: per nom. There needs to be some evidence of professional recognition of his theory, as in peer-reviewed journals in his field, objective third party citations etc. as stated in  and . Otherwise it is  which Wikipedia, to maintain credibility, is seeking to exclude
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:PROF||WP:OR)

Comment: per nom - |POV and |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:OR)