Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary psychoanalysis
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
— User:FreelanceWizard, 09:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:REF (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)