Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broken (Armstrong novel)

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 keep‎. – Joe (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broken (Armstrong novel)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No sources outside of goodreads etc. Most of the sources found upon searching 'broken novel' are not even this book. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. 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 can include 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.
Sources
1. McMahon, Donna (2006). "Broken". SF Site. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18.
  The review notes: "So I found the story growing tedious as it devolved into a cycle: the heroes discuss their options, attempt a strategy, discover something that makes the problem more complicated, fight for their lives, eat, have sex, sleep, then discuss their options again, and so forth. It soon seemed inevitable that our protagonist would end up alone and in peril, and sure enough, Armstrong eventually contrives to extricate Elena from her pack of werewolf bodyguards so she can fight alone. ... Fans of action may also enjoy this book -- there are lots of fights and chases. And Armstrong provides some candid pointers on how to have hot sex in the third trimester, which some readers will no doubt delight in and others are liable to find a turn-off. I found that all the action was plot-driven and none of the characters engaged me enough to keep me interested in the outcome."
2. Crutcher, Wendy. "Broken by Kelley Armstrong". The Romance Reader. Archived from the original on 2007-03-09. Retrieved 2023-05-18.
  The review notes: "This is an engaging entry to highly readable series. Armstrong continues to write strong female leads, and even introduces a new one – a vampire named Zoë who has a lot of fun potential. Elena continues to be strong – content and ready to move on to a new phase in her life. Readers who became so engaged with her in the first two novels will certainly enjoy this return visit."
  The Romance Reader was published and edited by D.N. Anderson and has Cathy Sova as a senior editor. Here is more information about The Romance Reader, which I consider to be a reliable source:
  1. "Favorite Web sites: www.theromancereader.com". The Tampa Tribune. 1999-06-14. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Readers of romance fiction have a difficult task separating the wonderful from the dreadful in their genre. The often-embarrassing cover art and the always-inaccurate jacket blurbs offer little guidance to a discriminating reader. Thank goodness for The Romance Reader, which offers an independent assessment of many new releases, judged on a scale of one to five hearts. There also are columns, including "My top 10 favorite romances of all time" by several authors, including LaVyrle Spencer and Susan Elizabeth Phillips."
  2. "The net". Star Tribune. 1999-01-15. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Web hits » http://www.theromancereader.com. If you're a romance novel junkie, The Romance Reader has all the love and kisses you could ever pine for. The core of the site is its book reviews (more than 1,000). Authors can respond to reviews of their work. Check interviews with numerous romance writers, lists of new releases, readers' recommendations and something called Road Stories — a collection of hilarious tales from authors about book signings and other memorable moments."
  3. Perrault, Anna H. (2013). "Literature and Literary Studies". In Perrault, Anna H.; Aversa, Elizabeth S. (eds.). Information Resources in the Humanities and the Arts, 6th Edition. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio. p. 158. ISBN 978-1-59884-832-8. Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "5-146. The Romance Reader. http://theromancereader.com. It has only been in recent years that romance novels have been taken seriously by those who don't read them, even though they are the most popular form of genre fiction with over half of mass market paperback fiction being romance novels. This site is one of the oldest review sites and it is organized into contemporary, historical, paranormal, series, and eclectic. The reviews rank the works according to one to five hearts. Other features are author interviews and a section where readers can ask questions and get answers. The site can help readers and librarians alike to be "in the know.""
  4. Bielke-Rodenbiker, Jean (2013). "Review Sources for Mystery Fiction". In Overmier, Judith; Taylor, Rhonda Harris (eds.). Managing the Mystery Collection: From Creation to Consumption. New York: Routledge. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-7890-3153-2. Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Google Books.
    This book source is about The Mystery Reader, which like The Romance Reader is also edited by D.N. Anderson. The book notes: "The Mystery Reader: http://www.themysteryreader.com. Companion to the Romance Reader site, this Web site is edited by D.N. Anderson. ... This site is one of the most often linked to by other sites: It's been around awhile and is a credible resource for mystery reviews."
3. Grimwood, John Courtenay (2006-06-09). "Murderous impulses". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18.
  The review notes: "A new book featuring werewolf heroine Elena Michaels should be good news for fans. And, at first, all the signs are promising. In return for revealing the hiding place of a serial killer, half-demon Xavier requires Elena, her lover Clay and their boss Jeremy to steal a letter written by Jack the Ripper. It seems a fair deal, until the letter opens a portal to the past and assorted 19th-century zombies start ruining Toronto's more exclusive districts. This is Buffy territory, now colonised by half-a-dozen US novelists, of which Armstrong is one of the best."
4. "Kelly Armstrong – Broken" (PDF). Vector. July–August 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2023-05-18.
  The review is listed here by the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. The review notes: "The sixth volume in Armstrong’s Women of the Otherworld series sees the return of the werewolf Elena Michaels, last seen in the second volume, Stolen (reviewed in Vector 233). This one sounds fascinating with Elena persuaded to steal Jack the Ripper’s ‘From Hell’ letter from a collector, which inadvertently opens a portal back to Victorian London. Oh, and our hero is pregnant. Which has sold it to me. Colin Odell and Mitch Le Blanc have reviewed much of this series, finding it at the front of this Buffyesque genre and strengthening with each volume."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Broken to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the validity. For example, #3 doesn't have Broken as the main subject, which seems to be required by the crit. I will leave that review process to others. Cunard, where do you find these sources from? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sungodtemple (talk · contribs). I found these searches through Google Books, Google, and Newspapers.com searches and through checking the book's entry in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. The Romance Reader review was in an earlier version of the article before being removed as a dead link. Cunard (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Cunard. Source #3 is a collection of 4 book reviews, one of which has Broken as the main subject. pburka (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2023 (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.