Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirsten Holmstedt


 * 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Kirsten Holmstedt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't quite pass WP:Author. Her claim to notability is that she's written three books, but only one has received any awards or significant attention.

~'ZupWitDat‽~ 21:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: Some mentions (]), just barely notable books, but not enough to be notable. Esquivalience t 00:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete and/or Redirect to Band of Sisters: American Women at War in Iraq. Nearly all of the coverage I'm seeing is in connection with the one book. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect Borderline case. 3 books with a "real" publisher. Some press attention as expert on women in the military. But Not enough review, attention to argue that any of them was a major book. And little on author herself.  So, redirect to Band of Sisters: American Women at War in Iraq.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect as I haven't looked at this closely but if there's not much improvement, moving is always an option. SwisterTwister   talk  05:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Keep. I found an additional review for one of her other books and it's just enough to push this into a weak keep category. That she's best known for the one book is undeniable, but there's just enough wiggle room here to justify a page. If this is deleted I'd argue strongly for a soft delete so that this can be un-redirected if/when the author gains more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You found a another source... for her book(s). Her first book is (probably) notable. However, (with the exception of the Shesource link, which is used twice, and which I'm not convinced is WP:RS, as it seems to have no editorial oversight and claims to exists solely to promote female "experts",) none of the references give in-depth information about HER, so she doesn't pass WP:GNG. And as a result, we don't really have enough referenced information available to write a decent biography, even if she was notable. Further, practically all available references relate to only one of her books. That isn't nearly enough to meet any of the criteria at WP:Author, also see WP:ONEEVENT . Yes, "if" her books and her life story are made into feature-length films, all of her books become best-sellers and are reviewed in The New York Times, or she otherwise becomes much more famous, she might then be notable enough for an article, but that is one of the worst arguments to make at AfD.
 * So, how exactly is she notable? ~'ZupWitDat‽~  19:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'll note that I do respect the consensus of the above commentators and would not oppose a "soft delete", if that means a redirect to the article about her one notable book, as opposed to deleting the page outright. ~'ZupWitDat‽~  19:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seems a particularly weakly argued AFD outside of a couple comments. Courcelles (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 01:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Library Journal is a trade magazine, but it's considered to be a reliable, notability giving source on Wikipedia. It's a short review, but so far there has been no consensus about whether or not short trade reviews would be considered unusable to show notability. The thing about notability for authors is that reviews count towards notability even if the book itself would not qualify for its own article because it hasn't received heavy coverage or had a notable film made about it. There are plenty of articles out there for authors whose collective work has received notice but none (or few) have warranted individual books. As far as biography content goes, ideally there would be enough coverage to have a lengthy biography section, but an author is not absolutely required to have coverage about themselves in order to pass notability guidelines. Reviews and articles about the books themselves is enough to pass notability guidelines if they are in places Wikipedia would consider reliable. In this instance we have a book that has enough notability to warrant its own page and a book that received little attention other than the Library Journal and a public radio station. It's not an awful lot, but it is something and enough to where I'd argue for a weak keep like I did above. I'm not opposed to a redirect per se, but I do think that there's enough to rationalize keeping the article. Again, coverage for both books in reliable sources does show notability for the author and it's ultimately notability that's in question here. We shouldn't delete an article just because the sourcing might not be enough to really source a biography section. As for SheSource, that looks to be a WP:PRIMARY source. (Also, you can always remove the doublecite - there's nothing stopping you from doing that.) It's usable to back up basic details but can't show notability. However I'm not arguing for notability based on the coverage about her specifically, but on the coverage for her works. Saying that we should delete an article for an author because there isn't a ton of coverage about her (despite there being coverage for her books) seems a little counterproductive, especially as one of the qualifications for notability for authors is that their collective works have achieved notability - and notability for books can be established via reviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "There are plenty of articles out there..." WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is one of the worst arguments you can make.
 * "an author is not absolutely required to have coverage about themselves in order to pass notability guidelines." So you admit she doesn't pass WP:GNG, and would therefore have to pass WP:Author to be notable. I've left a detailed comment as to how and why she doesn't pass WP:Author below.
 * "We shouldn't delete an article just because the sourcing might not be enough to really source a biography." Why should we keep a WP:BLP we couldn't possibly write? BLPs require the best of sourcing. Keeping an article that may never be more than a substub does not improve the the encyclopedia.
 * I'm not saying her one notable book isn't notable, I'm saying that having exactly one notable book isn't itself enough to make an author automatically notable, and nobody's provided any evidence it's otherwise. ~'ZupWitDat‽~  20:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone can pass WP:NAUTHOR and be considered notable. The thing is, all we have to do to establish notability for an author is to show that her work has received coverage in multiple sources. One of her books is notable and another has gained coverage as well. The other book might not merit a separate article, but NAUTHOR has never required that the author have published books that would merit individual articles. DGG can back me up on this as well, as he also frequently edits articles about authors and books. As far as the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS bit goes, what I actually meant by this is that there is plenty of precedent for us to keep articles on authors based on coverage for their work even though the author themselves have received little to no coverage. If Holmstedt only had one book that received reviews I'd agree with you, but she hasn't. Her second book has received coverage. Limited coverage, but it's still coverage. Because of this, she does pass the notability guidelines for authors which again. Also, nobody is saying anything here about inherited notability. The argument we're making in this situation is this:
 * Holmstedt has released three books. Two of those books have received coverage, albeit one far more so than the other. One of the qualifications for NAUTHOR is that the author's body of work must have received coverage. Since she has two books that have received coverage, she passes NAUTHOR.
 * NAUTHOR was a guideline written specifically for authors because many authors tend to receive coverage for their works (ie, reviews) but not as much for themselves. What you're trying to do here pretty much goes against what has been established at NAUTHOR. GNG is not expected or even supposed to apply to every person because there are situations where it would disqualify people who are notable for things that would not gain oodles of traditional coverage. Any experienced AfD editor will back up that "one size does not fit all" with notability guidelines. As far as "not inherited" goes, no one is trying to say that another book would be notable because a previous one is notable enough for its own article. What we're arguing here is that the author has received coverage for multiple books and as such, would pass NAUTHOR - a guideline that does not require that the author herself have received coverage independent of her works. You can try to lobby for this to change, but it's unlikely to pass.
 * I also have to note that Holmstedt's work as a whole is used as a citation in various works, such as the MIT Press book When Johnny and Jane come marching home: how all of us can help veterans. Her second book The Girls Come Marching Home is used as a citation on pages 64 and 66 and Holmstedt's name is specifically highlighted. (I've added this as a source to the article.) You can also see her cited here, in this University of Nebraska Press book (for her first and second book). I've also found another review for her second book via Google Scholar (which I rarely use) from the Virginia Law Review, which looks to be run through the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Her first and second books are also given a pretty thorough dissection in a doctoral thesis written by a University of South Florida student - and doctoral theses are considered to be usable as a reliable source.
 * Basically, the long and short here is that authors do not have to have coverage for themselves to pass notability guidelines, as coverage/recognition for their overall work is sufficient and Holmstedt has received coverage for her work as a whole, not just for her first book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Czar, I think the sources presented are still weak at best. Please answer my question above, rephrased slightly here: with so little sourceable biographical information, why should we keep a WP:BLP that we can't possibly write (beyond a substub)? ~'ZupWitDat‽~  16:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Czar, I think the sources presented are still weak at best. Please answer my question above, rephrased slightly here: with so little sourceable biographical information, why should we keep a WP:BLP that we can't possibly write (beyond a substub)? ~'ZupWitDat‽~  16:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm turning my "weak keep" into a regular "keep" per my new additions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Heck, now that I'm looking for things other than reviews, I'm actually finding enough to where I could justify her second book having an article. I also need to point out that what Hullaballoo was saying was that the LJ review means that it's likely that other sources exist, just that they're likely in places that many wouldn't be likely to check or even know to check, which is fairly common. It's especially common with authors whose work is of greater interest to the academic crowd, since mainstream sources tend to focus on more easily marketable fare like the new Dan Brown novel. Not saying that the mainstream sources are wrong for doing this, just that they have to go with what people are more likely to read, especially since there will always be more books than there are available review/coverage spaces in any given medium. In any case, it can usually be far more difficult to find coverage with academic sources unless you have access to academic databases, as the majority of academic sources do not show up in a Google or Bing search for whatever reason. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, more or less per Tokyogirl79 but more strongly. While LJ reviews may not be great as in-depth sources, they are strong indicators of stature and signals that more extensive coverage is likely to exist -- as for most books these days. typically offline or behind paywalls. No less important, the nominator has a serious misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED, which generally does not apply to the relationship between creator and creative work. Most authors are notable precisely because they have created notable books (or other works); musicians are notable because they have created notable music. Notability is not "inherited" here; it is shared. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice misdirection; WP:NOTINHERITED was only a small part of my argument, and then only as a response to another comment. I've struck it, if only to show that my comment stands without it. Keep commentators are suggesting that because one of her books has enough reviews to be barely notable, she must be notable; that's wrong, and is almost the same logical fallacy explained in WP:NOTINHERITED. Having one somewhat notable book simply isn't enough to make her or her other books automatically notable. {Side note: This is exactly why my opening statement was so short and "weakly argued" I read a number of recent AfDs, and concluded that longer comments are rarely read and comprehended in their entirety by good-faith contributors, and only serve to provoke such subterfuge as this}.
 * "Most authors are notable precisely because they have created notable books"; she has created exactly one book that could be considered at all notable, which is something, but not quite enough to pass any existent notability criteria (see below). And if she were notable, there should be some sources about HER (it seems Shesource is basically Facebook for self-proclaimed female "experts", and so doesn't count), so far, there's none.
 * Other than that, your argument seems to be that more sources probably exist, but you can't provide them right now; unfortunately, notability requires verifiable evidence. ~'ZupWitDat‽~  20:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Other than that, your argument seems to be that more sources probably exist, but you can't provide them right now; unfortunately, notability requires verifiable evidence. ~'ZupWitDat‽~  20:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The criteria for WP:Author, and why she doesn't pass it:
 * 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * The sources presented do not demonstrate this.
 * 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
 * Definitely not applicable.
 * 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * Note that to meet this criteria, the works must be well-known AND be the subject of a film etc. Hers aren't.
 * 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * Definitely not (a), (b), & (d). A very weak argument could be made for (c), but again, the few reviews here do not show "significant critical attention" for her works. Her works are not frequently cited by other "experts", they have not been reviewed by notable critics or in widely-circulated mainstream sources like The New York Times, they have not been the subject of films or similar derivative works; they simply aren't that notable, and neither is she. ~'ZupWitDat‽~  20:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Per WP:BLP and Tokyogirls' encouragement, I've edited the article to remove all info that was unsourced or only sourced to questionable and/or primary sources. ~'ZupWitDat‽~  20:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect as a courtesy to Band of Sisters (book), which is very clearly her most notable work if she is not notable herself. I checked one of the LexisNexis and the reviews should be sufficient (at least for now) to support an article on the book. I don't see another clear case for the author being known for something else, or to have enough cause to give her a separate article. By the way, I would absolutely not count Library Journal towards notability, especially for recent books. LJ a good predictor of whether serious reviewers will write something substantial about the book, but it gives too little on its own to show any mark of importance or discernment. czar  04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * LJ isn't the strongest source, but so far there's been no consensus that it is unusable as a reliable source that would show notability. The subject has been broached at NBOOK and I've even started one of those discussions myself, but there's been no agreement on it being unusable. Even Kirkus Reviews is still considered usable and they're a trade with some serious issues when it comes to reviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I'm in the camp that a two-sentence catalog-style listing (literally) in this case is not something to count towards significant coverage. I think if it gets down to the point of quibbling over whether something like LJ or Choice counts (Kirkus tends to be longer), the case for keeping is weak—it means that we're trying to decide whether a two-sentence summary of the book (which is already not worth citing if any other title has covered that info) makes or breaks a book's coverage. Articles should have enough for us to write a full overview of the subject. czar  14:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Band of Sisters (book), with due respect to the sources presented, they are mostly about the book, not about Holmstedt herself as far as I can see. Per User:Zupwitdat, I don't see that she meets WP:AUTHOR.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC).
 * I'm going to ping and  to come and look at the new additions to the article, specifically the additions of another review and citations to places that mention the second book explicitly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't see it. (Could someone add a quote to the Caplan book citation? Otherwise it's unhelpful to me.) Unless there are sources about her, the coverage is explicitly about the books and the articles should be about the books. czar  14:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Czar, there are pretty extensive mentions. She's used as a reference in multiple chapters, ten times. Here are the portions that mention her in the book chapters and the notations that did more than just list the name of her book. Some of the notations are pretty extensive, enough to where they could probably be included as well for page notation. One of them actually used a full paragraph from her second book. It's pretty extensively used as a source and it's the only one of her books that is brought up in the work at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Kirstin Holmstedt describes many problems of these mothers in her book about women in the military. Those who come home physically injured or emotionally limited (detached, overwhelmed, angry) feel guilty or ashamed of being unable to carry out ordinary motherly tasks. (p. 64)
 * 2) And Holmstedt relates the story of a black woman and a biracial Pacific Islander and Irish woman serving in Iraq, where their fellow soldiers repeatedly subjected them to racist slurs and racist treatment. (p. 66)
 * 3) Notation #40 on page 234-235 reads “Holmstedt in The Girls Come Marching Home relates the story of a woman soldier who was shot at four times in the Army, three times by Americans and once by Iraqi celebratory fire.
 * 4) Notation #57 on 236 reads “Holmstedt in The Girls Come Marching Home recounts the story of a woman who told her platoon sergeant that another soldier had sexually assaulted her, and the sergeant said they needed to keep the perpetrator in the service because they needed him to work.”
 * 5) Notation #85 on 238 gives an extensive quote from page 149 of The Girls Come Marching Home, which goes on for about a paragraph: “Contractors like KBR provided … shower water that was not disinfected with chlorine or properly filtered; it was concentrated waste stream … She wonders what exactly the contractors spent the money on … [T]he contractors carelessly exposed troops … to E. coli, typhoid fever, and hepatitis … McNeill and those she served with had grown used to an upset stomach and the smell of sulfur in the showers … She carried a new M16 that was missing a part, so it wasn’t a reliable weapon. She carried a gas mask with a “training” canister rather than the type that would actually work in an attack.” The quote is used to back up a passage in the book about how soldiers were lied to by the government or military.


 * Thanks, but isn't that all coverage about the book though? What sources are being used to show that the author herself is notable? I see a notable book, a perhaps notable second book, and the issue is where to put coverage on the latter (since there's nothing on the author herself). If the books are related (are they?) the notable book's page would be a fine place to mention what the author did following the first book's release. So in absence of sources about the subject or sources that assert her uniqueness as an author, a redirect to the major book still appears to be the solution that covers all bases. czar  15:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets criterion 3 in WP:AUTHOR . The reviews are sufficient. LJ is a selective reviewer, with the intention of only including books that libraries are likely to buy. However, when there is only one significant book, it's optional whether to put the article at the book or the author -- in practice, we very rarely do both-(for one thing, most of the content would duplicate.  (I normally suggest the author, for there is potential for expansion--people who write one notable book tend to  write another)  When there are multiple significant works, it makes sense to put the main article about the author, adding articles about the most notable books, but not necessarily every potentially notable book, because often a combined article is better.  Here there are 2 books --they are about the same general subject, but they are 3 successive books. The first is very highly notable, with 1600 copies in libraries a/c worldcat. .The second talk about similar experiences, but in a subsequent war, and is also notable,  with 700 holdings; Iwould cover it in the author article  The third is forthcoming at this point, but probably will be notable, because a 3rd book in the same area by someone with previous very successful books usually is. I would cover this too in the author article.  Though library holdings are not a formal criterion, they normally parallel the reviews--this is not coincidence, as libraries, especially public libraries, select their books mainly on the basis of such reviews,  supplemented by public requests.  DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - she's a best-selling and highly rated author at the store for which I am working this holiday season, Barnes & Noble. If you come to the E. 86th Street store, I'll sell it to you as a book or Nook, along with a membership. :-) Bearian (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: We are now in the tenth day of the third week of this afd, despite there being no activity between October 24-28, and the consensus at the end of the second and third weeks being for delete/redirect. Is it standard procedure to keep an afd open for an arbitrary length of time to force a no consensus? Of course, the two comments above (# of library holdings? Popularity on one bookstore?) are not base on any policy I could find, and so will probably be disregarded by the closing administrator. ~'ZupWitDat‽~  16:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.