Waking the Tiger – The debate over whether this is in scope notwithstanding, nobody seems to have any issue with moving this draft back to mainspace. Whether it is then taken for a subsequent deletion discussion is left to individual editor's discretion. – Lankiveil(speak to me) 23:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Newton, Ruth P. (March 1998). "Book Reviews: Waking the Tiger, Healing Trauma". Psychosomatic Medicine. 60 (2): 233. Retrieved 2017-05-17.
The review notes:
For me, the most interesting part of the book is its neurobehavioral approach to trauma, implicating the survival routines in the protoreptilian brain. The case material is also interesting as one can see how he uses his theory to guide his clinical work; however, the theory and case material are entangled by a self-help format that weakens his presentation and jeopardizes the overall organization of the book. I found it necessary to ignore the self-help aspects of the book to appreciate this interesting hypothesis and useful application, and I believe the book is more appropriately used by professionals rather than directly by patients or clients.
After the AfD was closed, I found a second book review:
Roden, Ann (September 1998). "Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma: The Innate Capacity to Transform Overwhelming Experiences (Book Review)". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 4 (3): 340. Archived from the original on 2017-05-18. Retrieved 2017-05-18.
The review notes:
The book is divided into four sections. Section I: The Body as Healer; Section II: Symptoms of Trauma; Section III: Transformationand Renegotiation; and Section IV: First Aid for Trauma. Section I describes the triune brain—reptilian instinctual brain, the mammalian or limbicemotional brain, and the human brain or neo-cortex, the rational brain. Peter Levine explains the ideal fully resourced 'present time' situation of an antelope on the African plains to the smell of lion. There is a fight or flight reaction and the antelope returns to the ideal state when the danger goes away. If the fight or flight response is inadequate, the antelope may 'drop down dead,' a catatonic state resulting in dissociation and immobilization, a highly charged imploded state. The animal appears dead and the lion walks away. The antelope reassociates, blinks, shivers, trembles, gets up, discharges excess energy, orientates, looks for the herd, and starts grazing as though nothing had happened.
...
As a Craniosacral Therapist, I have found this work of Peter Levine invaluable in helping me to help my clients to resolve long forgotten traumas that are stopping them from living a fulfilling life.
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Only one editor commented after I posted the first review and didn't address it in his or her comment. No editors have commented about the second review because I did not find it until now.
I would propose creating a new page in draft space. I can restore the deleted page to a draft title. bd2412T 02:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Please restore the article to Draft:Waking the Tiger. Cunard (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cheers! bd2412T 03:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article. If you agree with restoration, would you move Draft:Waking the Tiger back to Waking the Tiger and add an addendum to your closing statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waking the Tiger (2nd nomination) noting that the article has been rewritten and restored? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get a chance to review the rewrite of Draft:Waking the Tiger? Cunard (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to. It should go through the usual process for submitting drafts. As the closer of the last discussion, I will remain uninvolved in this process.` bd2412T 11:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the draft to mainspace at Waking the Tiger after my rewrite because {{db-repost}} is not applicable. Cunard (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disapprove. I doubt this decision will end well. bd2412T 02:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What submitting drafts process did you want me to use? Wikipedia:Articles for creation is for unregistered editors or editors with a conflict of interest. I am a registered editor and do not have a conflict of interest. Cunard (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred some process to obtain community consensus to do this. bd2412T 02:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have the moved article back to draftspace and will obtain community consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 20#Waking the Tiger. Cunard (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article at Draft:Waking the Tiger.
Here are two reviews about the book:
Newton, Ruth P. (March 1998). "Book Reviews: Waking the Tiger, Healing Trauma". Psychosomatic Medicine. 60 (2): 233. Retrieved 2017-05-17.
Roden, Ann (September 1998). "Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma: The Innate Capacity to Transform Overwhelming Experiences (Book Review)". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 4 (3): 340. Archived from the original on 2017-05-18. Retrieved 2017-05-18.
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Only one editor commented in the AfD after I posted the first review and didn't address it in his or her comment. No editors have commented about the second review because I did not find it until after the AfD close.
Comment: This should not be at Deletion Review, which is to appeal AFD decisions. User:Cunard's new version of article includes 2 new sources (one mentioned late in the AFD) and is a new article in effect. Cunard does not dispute the validity of the decision. Cunard, you should withdraw this and simply move the article to mainspace. Anyone can create a new article at the topic of a deleted article; there is no requirement to get a new consensus. Of course if it is very similar to the deleted one then persons who participated in the AFD might notice it and object, which would be a ding to your reputation i suppose, but that is not the case here. --doncram 03:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is what Cunard originally did. I advised him to withdraw the move and seek consensus for moving the rewritten article to mainspace. I think the best outcome would be a consensus-based determination of whether the draft merits inclusion in mainspace. bd2412T 03:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then your advice was suboptimal. Anyone can put anything in mainspace at any time, with the caveat that some things are obviously disruptive and should be dealt with as user conduct issues. If the article is not G4 eligible, which this one isn't, then anyone who continues to disagree can seek a further deletion discussion. DRV is not a required--or even encouraged--stop when the reason for any previous deletion has been addressed in good faith. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having some process to obtain community approval for a new article on a recently deleted topic prevents editors from being accused of evading the outcome of the deletion discussion by, for example, adding just enough new material to claim that the article has overcome whatever objections constituted the basis for deletion. Conversely, such a process would prevent spammers and advertisers from engaging in exactly such tactics. I am not suggesting that this revision falls into any of those categories, but it is useful to preempt potential objections. bd2412T 20:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a tad bureaucratic. One important consideration, which I think could be considered critical if there were to be guidance written around this, is that Cunard had no prior history with the article (I'm assuming this is true, it would be checked by checking the article history). If Cunard were to improve the article, move it back to mainspace, to see it deleted again at AfD, he should be precluded from ever moving it again, unilaterally, back into mainspace. Until precluded, as a previously uninvolved editor with the article, I think he should be about to put it back in mainspace on his own judgement. I think article rescuers should be encouraged, subject to a pattern of bad rescued evidenced by deletion of their rescue products. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Cunard believes the reasons for deletion are overcome, I advise that he should move it to mainspace, notifying AfD participants, and see if it gets nominated again. If re-deleted, recalibrate what you think constitutes overcoming deletion reasons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This says that Cunard is a strong inclusionist, but not with seriously aberrant !voting. I see no reason to say Cunard is unqualified to decide when reasons for deletion voiced at AfD have been overcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore draft, or possibly overturn AfD close to relist. The new draft is substantially different from the one that was deleted. The major objection at the AfD was that there were insufficient sources. New sources have been located. Some of them were presented during the AfD, but nobody evaluated them. If I were reviewing the AfD discussion with an eye to close it, I almost certainly would have not closed it, but rather relisted it, with a relisting comment that the job over the next week was to evaluate the sources that had been presented. I have no opinion on the quality of the new article, or of the sources presented. My objection here is that the process seems to have gone off the rails. Our primary function during an AfD is to review the sources. That was not done. Therefore the AfD is defective. And the events after that have just been pointless bureaucracy. So, put the draft back into mainspace, and if anybody is unhappy with the sources it now has, they are free to bring it back to AfD for another look. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's right to put the improved draft into mainspace.—S MarshallT/C 15:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I might well !vote to delete (or merge?) this in an AfD (I'm not sure I buy that those sources are reliable though I've not looked closely I've got grave doubts about the level of peer review in alternative medicine), but doncram et. al. are right, this doesn't belong at DRV--it should just be recreated. I suspect Roy is right about the original discussion, but given it doesn't really matter, I've not thought about it much. Hobit (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move this out of deletion review ASAP User: Doncram wrote: "This should not be at Deletion Review, which is to appeal AFD decisions. User:Cunard's new version of article includes 2 new sources (one mentioned late in the AFD) and is a new article in effect." I concur with User: Doncram. Knox490 (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me do this tomorrow, 1 more day for further comments. I am hesitant as it may indeed be brought to another AFD and possible repurcussions.--Jondel (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Cunard: If I restore it , it will look like I wrote it. --Jondel (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the draft is moved into mainspace, its history will be moved along with it. It will look like you moved it, not like you wrote it. bd2412T 15:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be best to wait until Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 20#Waking the Tiger is closed by an uninvolved admin, who will move it to mainspace. The deletion review will run for at least seven days. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be restoring it then but will be watching the progress of this review.--Jondel (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this would appear to be in scope of DRV, which according to the blurb at the top of the page may be used "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Given that we're talking about new sources, that would seem fair. I haven't had a look at the draft myself and remain neutral as to whether recreation is justified in this case. Lankiveil(speak to me) 02:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, DRV can be used for such cases. But it is not required. If it were, we'd protect every title deleted at AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
