Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waking the Tiger 2

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep --SPUI (talk) 04:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waking the Tiger

This was voted for undeletion. Accordingly per procedure I am relisting on VfD. I currently have no vote on this article. If I decide otherwise I will enter an explicit vote below.

• The article was originally entitled "How to Heal Traumas,"
• The original reason given for deletion was "Barely coherent, New Age-ish, unreferenced essay with a special guest appearance by Medusa. In cleanup for more than 6 months. Completely idiosyncratic non-topic."
• The original debate is at Talk:Walking_the_Tiger/Archive:Votes_for_deletion:How_to_heal_traumas.
• The article at the time of deletion is essentially the identical to the oldest revision of the current article.
• The second VfD debate is at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Waking_the_Tiger; most of the delete votes argued that it was re-creation of previously deleted material, most of the keep votes argued that it was a new article about a reasonably notable book.
• The VfU discussion centered on the issue of whether this is a re-creation of material voted for deletion, or completely new material. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes

• Keep, seems notable enough. --SPUI (talk) 00:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I just edited the article and added a lot of hedging. Previously it was unacceptably presenting as true the various theories about the author. (I know nothing about this alleged book.) Tempshill 00:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I change to abstain; my edits were only to make the factual claims barely acceptable in the event it turns out to be a keeper; I don't endorse the continued existence of the article. Tempshill 00:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I'm unsure of its notability, but I'll give a 2,183 Amazon sales rank the benefit of the doubt. No judgment from the previous VfD should carry over to this substantially different version. Postdlf 00:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The deletion of this article at the close of the last round of Vfd -- which reached no consensus -- is itself procedurally questionable. Be that as it may, IMO, we must make a decision about the article as it exists, not to enforce some procedural pet peeve. Keep, by the way. Jgm 02:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Amazon rank over 10,000 Suggests this is a notable book. Klonimus 04:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Book's notability is established. Sjakkalle 07:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep per the above. Radiant_* 07:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Seems notable. Megan1967 08:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep and expand. Oliver Keenan 14:53, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Voted undelete in VfU. Notable in my view. --JuntungWu 14:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seems OK to me. --Monoet 16:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are worse things you can write an article on than a book you can buy in bookstores and order from Amazon. 24.4.127.164 05:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.