Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waking the Tiger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
SimonP 19:40, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) The result of the debate was - no consensus. Radiant_* 11:56, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Waking the Tiger
This article was originally VfD'd at Talk:Walking the Tiger/Archive:Votes for deletion:How to heal traumas. Vote was to delete, not to move to a new name. This page should be deleted. RickK 09:57, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Rick, Ok. Delete the How to heal traumas. But Waking the Tiger should be considered a separate issue as a book review.Pls note that Waking the Tiger is a notable book.--Jondel 10:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete without independent verifiability that anyone else cares - David Gerard 19:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- WELL I CARE. KEEP--Jondel 06:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Um, it's nice that you care. But the book seems non-notable. DaveTheRed 06:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Since there are an awful lot of self-help books out there, I would like to know what sets this book apart from the others in its genre. In other words, is it meaningful or is it just a reiteration of common-sensical catchphrases and buzzwords? If the article can be rewritten to demonstrate that, I'd be happy to keep it. Abstain for now. Radiant_* 08:53, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- One of the best books on effectively healing traumas, emotional hangups. Gives a very clear basis of how and why we get paralyzed or traumatized. How the 'fight or flight' responce may have been useful in man's primitive days but continues to exist and detrimentally affect our lives today. Pls read the reviews. I personnaly have found it very relevant and practical. I don't sem to have the ability to rewrite.I would appreciate the help.--Jondel 09:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep article on notable book. Support sending to cleanup for rewrite though. Jgm 22:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So if you lose a VfD vote, all you have to do is rename the article, strip off the VfD headers, and get a new chance with new votes? RickK 05:53, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about the previous vote, I simply think this book is a valid subject for an article and that the current version, though it has problems, is an acceptable starting point. Jgm 13:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- RickK is referring to the VfD of How to Heal Trauma, Waking the Tiger is the name of the book. RickK can't this be treated as a separate issue? Waking the Tiger as a book review? The intent of HTHTs was as the name of the title is , healing traumas. This is a book review now.--Jondel 06:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The same nonsense that was in the first article is in this one. The whole Medusa business. This is almost word-for-word from the first article. Whether or not this is a book review, the same wording applies. RickK 21:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I'll be trimming down or removing the Medusa section.--Jondel 00:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The same nonsense that was in the first article is in this one. The whole Medusa business. This is almost word-for-word from the first article. Whether or not this is a book review, the same wording applies. RickK 21:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- So if you lose a VfD vote, all you have to do is rename the article, strip off the VfD headers, and get a new chance with new votes? RickK 05:53, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Why can't it just be speedied as re-creation of deleted material? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as recreation of previously vfd'd article.-gadfium 05:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that moving the content to Waking the Tiger (the title it should have been under in the first place) was in fact a course of action that was suggested during the course of the VfD. Was it unwise to move the article during the course of a VfD? Yes, it was. Should it be taken, as RickK suggests, as evidence of bad faith, or should the fact that Jondel was following suggestions being made for cleanup be taken as evidence of good faith? I think the latter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Moving was not the result of the Vfd. Delete was.-gadfium 01:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that moving the content to Waking the Tiger (the title it should have been under in the first place) was in fact a course of action that was suggested during the course of the VfD. Was it unwise to move the article during the course of a VfD? Yes, it was. Should it be taken, as RickK suggests, as evidence of bad faith, or should the fact that Jondel was following suggestions being made for cleanup be taken as evidence of good faith? I think the latter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Then pound a wooden stake into its heart. Edeans 04:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup, seems like a notable book. The article has been heavily modified since it entered VFD, and is no longer a reposting of deleted content. Most of the above votes are also outdated; whoever closes this discussion should take that into account. --SPUI (talk) 15:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- ' Keep the Article It is a seminal book in the field and is the only article I've yet found on the issue of trauma and shock. It does need work and I for one will work on it. PS: I do not agree with all of Dr. Levin's ideas. Mickey Judd
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.
