Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurel Neme

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Neme

Laurel Neme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Sources provided include a personal website, articles written by the subject for internet publications, and bios of the subject, but no actual coverage about the subject from WP:RS. Most of the information about the subject given in the "Publications" section is work done under the auspices of other agencies and does not convey notability. --Kinu t/c 07:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, again, per WP:BIO. — Chromancertalk/cont 00:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Struck by user; see below. — Chromancer talk/cont 20:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Take another look. I just added several Reliable Sources to the article - including an interview of her by Time Magazine for heavens sake![1] --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I would say that being interviewed by NPR and by Time Online does lend credibility, but I'm concerned that these aren't discussions about her work, but interviews with her about her work. I'm inclined to agree with WP:PRIMARY, which contends interviews fall under primary sources (per the footnote). Granted, they definitely show she might be an expert in her field, but seeing as how policy prevents basing an entire article on such sources, I would personally need to see more secondary sources about her or her work to be convinced that WP:GNG is met. --Kinu t/c 20:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to disagree. Sure, it could be argued that what she SAID during those interviews is a primary source; but the FACT that she was interviewed is not something under her control. Rather, it is prima facie evidence that Time, NPR, etc. consider her to be notable. How many subjects of Wikipedia articles have ever been interviewed by Time? --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources here look like enough. I suppose it depends on whether you classify interviews as establishing notability or not; for my money, these ones are secondary sources providing significant coverage, which is exactly the type of source that establishes notability. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Dreamspy (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per comments above; she is also cited in other works and journals. Keristrasza (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. EnabledDanger (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. There is coverage, but it does not appear to be significant as required by WP:GNG. Note, that the interviews with her are not really about her, but about the field in which she is considered an expert. Being an expert does not confer notability, significant coverage confers notability.--PinkBull 15:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust Talk Contribs 03:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second relist rationale: It is a BLP. Armbrust Talk Contribs 03:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be regarded as an expert in her field, holds an advanced degree, interviewed by Vermont Public Radio and Time. She's a public figure. I do hate the layout and tone of the page, but that's not what we're talking about here. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that she appears to be a public figure, cited as an authority by multiple major media sources VASterling (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have struck my !vote from the record. I hate being wrong, but I have to say my own reasons for deleting this are marginal, and it's been bothering me as I've seen the debate go on. I'm not going to change my vote to keep, but I just don't think that the sourcing one way or the other convinces me which way this article should go; oddly enough, I abstain. — Chromancer talk/cont 20:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the top of WP:PEOPLE, quoting from Encarta: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." " If Time and NPR are seeking her opinion (so she is worthy of notice) on animal crimes (for want of a better phrase) then that's keep for me. She might also pass parts of WP:CREATIVE. Bigger digger (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laurel_Neme&oldid=1137982095"