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 delete. This is a difficult and close call, but the paucity of material in the article and the absence of additional sources from which to expand it further, the majority of participants supporting deletion dovetails with the lack of harm to the encyclopedia to come from this removal. A reasonable alternative might be to create an article on author Peter A. Levine and redirect there (such an article appears to have been attempted before and deleted for unambiguous advertising or promotion, but it may be possible to write a non-promotional piece on the subject). bd2412 T 00:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waking the Tiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: It seems the three references provided are all independent reviews, which unless I'm missing something, would pass criteria #1 of WP:NBOOK. Am I missing something? Toddst1 (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are not in reliable sources (and the one that arguably is, is not of this book but another one). Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria says (emphasis mine) "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." and note 5 says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." I believe these 4 reviews meet this test and that one of them is published by the British Psychological Society, removes any doubt in my mind. Toddst1 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected to take in the gloss on "non-trivial". A site like cheap-health-revolution.com ("The hidden secrets of home-based natural health") does not count. And the "review" apparently published by the British Psychological Society is not of this book. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down on the BPS review. It's there. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1: It isn't on that page that I can see. Perhaps I'm missing it: could you copy the opening words of the review so I can search for it as a sanity check? There only appears to be a review of another Levine book, and the word "Tiger" appears twice on the page, as an oblique reference to this earlier work. And you agree the other sources were junk I take it Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: Kudos to your persistence on this. Yes, the first paragraph of that review is all about this book, but the review is of the author's later book. I've struck my Keep.Toddst1 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient reviews, and plethorae of other mentions in news items in connection with the author indicate notability. That is, if he's quoted and referenced as "author of Waking the Tiger" that's sufficient evidence of notability for me. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: But there are no decent reviews are there? What did you have in mind? Alexbrn (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient reviews. The reason I believe this should be here is it introduces a powerful method of curing trauma based on nature or animal psychology. This would be useful for example, for war veterans who can't focus on a normal life,etc.--Jondel (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jondel: But there are no decent reviews are there? What did you have in mind? Alexbrn (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you protect Wikipedia from cyber snake oil Alex. Although the focus was on . "In an Unspoken Voice: How the Body Releases Trauma and Restores Goodness " one paragraph is devoted to Waking the Tiger. Other source have been added since.--Jondel (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so it wasn't really right to add the reference as a book review of Waking the Tiger. As I have said a few times, there appear to be no reputable reviews of this book: hence it is not notable enough for us. This is why there is an AfD. If anyone can produce two decent reviews (actual reviews, of this book, in a respectable publication) I will change my mind in an instant! Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From,time.com at #12 or the seventh paragraph from The Tribune? These guys can't be wrong.--Jondel (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of sentences here or there does not constitute a book review. A book review is like what you linked from the British Psychological Society (only that was for another book). Alexbrn (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Two of the three sources were not MEDRS and failed WP:FRIND. There is one decent source. One. There is obvious promotional pressure on this article, per the !vote above by the creator of this page. diff Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- insufficiently notable; I've looked for sources but was only able to find promo blurbs and interviews with the author. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Somatic experiencing. Does not stand as a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:NBOOK #1; that the author is mentioned as "the author of X" doesn't help get it over that bar. Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Marzillier, John (May 2011). "Book reviews". British Psychological Society. Archived from the original on 2017-05-17. Retrieved 2017-05-17.

     The article notes:

     The psychologist Peter Levine is a major figure in the trauma field. His earlier book, Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma (North Atlantic Books, 1997), aimed at a general readership, was very successful. In it he promoted the idea that the way to help those affected by trauma was not through talking but through action. Somatic Experiencing, as he has calls it, combines body awareness work with a sensitive assessment of the psychological causes of trauma. It is not enough, and in fact it may make people worse, to ask people to relive traumas purely verbally. The body needs to be involved so that physical actions that were inhibited are re-enacted in therapy and latent energy can be discharged.

  2. Newton, Ruth P. (March–April 1998). "Book Reviews: Waking the Tiger, Healing Trauma". Psychosomatic Medicine. 60 (2): 233. Retrieved 2017-05-17.

     The article 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.

  3. Eckl, Cheryl (2011-08-27). "Heal the Trauma, Then the Grief". Psychology Today. Archived from the original on 2017-05-17. Retrieved 2017-05-17.

     The article notes:

     As trauma expert Peter A. Levine demonstrates in his seminal book, Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma (North Atlantic Books, 1997), we can learn much about trauma from observing animals in the wild. This is because we are a lot like them.

     This is a passing mention but it notes the book is "seminal".
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Waking the Tiger to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article has been around since 2004 and there's literally one review of it listed in the References section. It seems highly unlikely, after 13 years have passed, that more reliable secondary sources are going to appear and establish notability. Passing mentions don't lift the notability level at all. I can't believe this article has survived this long. LAroboGuy (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2017 (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.