Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Status dynamic psychotherapy
We should be pleased when |subject experts choose to contribute to Wikipedia, not trying to frighten them off with ikilawyering|wikilawyering templates. Citing oneself is not |original research as long as the sources have been published by reputable publishers, as these have. There are also several citations from other authors, and there are more sources available from http://books.google.co.uk/books?client=firefox-a&um=1&num=100&q=%22Status+dynamic%22+%2B%28psychotherapy+OR+therapy%29&btnG=Search+Books Google Books and http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?client=firefox-a&um=1&num=100&q=%22Status%20dynamic%22%20%2B(psychotherapy%20OR%20therapy)&sa=N&tab=ps Google Scholar searches. I haven't looked through previous versions of the article, but as it now stands I don't see |this reads like a text book - or at least there's enough there that doesn't read like a text book to sustain an article
— User:Phil, 11:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:W||WP:OR||WP:NOTTEXTBOOK||WP:expert editors (Help:Watchlist)