Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Status dynamic psychotherapy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Triwbe (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status dynamic psychotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is an essay full of WP:OR and fails on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. WP:SYN is probably an issue. Triwbe (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It seems like a legitimate term and certainly has received some coverage, however: the article desperately needs clean up and I agree that a significant proportion appears to be largely essayist commentary. I don't think deletion is the answer though. WilliamH (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your helpful comments and suggestions. A reworking of the entry is currently in progress to be less essay-like or textbook in format and more consistent with encyclopedic entries. Anabridges (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Definitely a legitimate term, a recognized system of psychotherapy like gestalt or existential. Should be kept while the author reworks the style to fit wiki standards. --Anscombe (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am author of this entry and am currently in process of revising it to a more encyclopedic style. Note rewrites of the introduction and first section. --[(User: Ray Bergner|Ray Bergner)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray Bergner (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since your book is the main source of references for this article, this raises WP:OR, WP:SPS and WP:COI issues. --Triwbe (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2008 (U*TC)

Comment The references are not self-published sources: they are all published by reputable academic publishers, and the article conforms to the WP:NOR#Citing oneself policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Keep". Having observed my wife employing the methods of Status Dynamic Therapy over 40 years of successful practice, I can vouch that this Wikipedia entry does not represent original research, but instead describes what has been around for quite a while. I can understand the concern about the number of self-citations, but I would attribute it to the fact that although many have contributed to this discipline, Bergner has been the most prolific writer. I am aware that the article is currently being revised by people who are new to Wikipedia, and I am confident that replacements will be found for any passages that are overly instructive or lacking in neutrality. I certainly consider the topic to be worthy of an article, in appropriate Wikipedia style. Buffcreek (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the previous editor is new and has made no contributions so far. --Triwbe (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an important contribution. I had opportunity to be trained in this form of psychotherapy thirty years ago by Peter Ossorio, a professor at University of Colorado, Boulder. I found it immensely useful as a framework for understanding problems and intervening to resolve them, with an elegance I rarely saw manifested in other frameworks. I have long been frustrated that it had been insufficiently communicated to others, and specifically, that it was not presented in Wikipedia. It arises from the system of thought, or school of psychology, known as Descriptive Psychology, which I hope will also be presented in Wikipedia. Walte51 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the previous editor is new and has made no contributions so far. --Triwbe (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We should be pleased when subject experts choose to contribute to Wikipedia, not trying to frighten them off with 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 Google Books and 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. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I concur with the above positive comments. Status Dynamics therapy is a formal approach that deserves to be more widely recognized. I also trained with Peter Ossorio in the 1970s. His work provides an important basis for new therapy approaches and provides a conceptual framework for systematic comparisons across therapy approaches. It is supported by years of critical work by Ossorio and his students. As a previous commenter noted, although the author of this article is the person who has published most prolifically on this topic, the approach to therapy summarized in this article benefits from a broad and firm foundation of conceptual development, as well as by the clinical experience of its practitioners. I'd recommend that this article be kept.Nlkirsch (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.