Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Psychiatric Rehabilitation and Recovery

Psychiatric Rehabilitation and Recovery
This book has been blanked by the principle author, User:Recovery Psychology. Swift (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we know why? &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 22:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. I guess the timing, relative to the A Textbook on Recovery Psychology saga could help shed some light on that. But right now, the weather is too good, and I should be outside... --Swift (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked regarding the deletion of A Textbook on Recovery Psychology if the content taken from Psychiatric Rehabilitation and Recovery could be rolled back since Psychiatric Rehabilitation is an already existing subject; the answer I got was not very clear. The field of Psychiatric Rehabilitation (Psychosocial Rehabilitation) is actual a sub-category of social work or behavioral health or rehabilitation. I felt it would fit in "recovery psychology" as much as the social work content (which is 90%...) of a psychology of developmental disability textbooks. As a critic of textbooks; I find that the psychology part of such textbooks (psychology of developmental disability) or that 10% is not really psychology, but humanistic philosophy, history, politics and the statements which declare: what the word disability means. The material in this text Psychiatric Rehabilitation and Recovery was absolutely boring and dull; but factual...It was the one thing I can assert I am credentialed in. (if you even care about expertise; If we were to discuss expertise) It would be far more redeemable by the standards that A Textbook on Recovery Psychology was decided to be deleted on.--recoverypsychologist (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Delete it...never mind--recoverypsychologist (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't understand the bit above. Anyone able to interpret it? --Swift (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand it fully either. To move things along though: This book seems to meet the criteria for speedy deletion, since blanking the page, leaving "delete" in the edit summary, and supporting the delete here qualifies as a request by the original author where there are no other contributors. Do you have any reasons why Wikibooks should not honor this request, since you brought it up here rather then speeding deleting it? --dark lama  11:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and given the decision on the other closely-related book by the same author... I'd have no major qualms about deleting this. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)