Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broken and Shared
- 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. Sandstein 19:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Broken and Shared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable book per WP:NBOOK. Article was deleted per PROD and undeleted via WP:REFUND. However, only two of the external links are reviews and only one is independent of the subject. Tone is also a problem - it reads like a publisher's press release. ukexpat (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - reads like advert. Information should go into articles on the author or journal if they are notable. --Thetrick (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2012 (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.