Deletion of Kirsten Holmstedt

Comment: Per  and Tokyogirls' encouragement, I've edited the article to remove all info that was unsourced or only sourced to questionable and/or primary sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: The criteria for uthor, and why she doesn't pass it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: Seems to be enough to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)