Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurel Neme (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  17:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Laurel Neme
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The last AfD, many years ago, was no cnosensus - hopefully we can now get a consensus. I don't see that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG at all. Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  18:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen&times; &#9742;  23:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm thinking she is notable per WP:NAUTHOR. Here are formal book reviews for her 2009 work, in addition to general media attention into the work: New Scientist, E–The Environmental Magazine, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, and The Oregonian. Kirkus Reviews reviewed 2 picture books she wrote: . There is also this article from The Burlington Free Press on her 2009 book that might be good to add, but I haven't had the time to look at it yet—please mind the gruesome photograph though. Best, Bridget (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Vermont. Bridget (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep sourcing is not great but she does seem like a notable figure. Llajwa (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG based on reviews of work posted above by Bridget. An entertainer with reviews of their work at this level would certainly be viewed as meeting GNG.  // Timothy :: talk  05:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - I found a review of Animal Investigators in Publishers Weekly, and at the Wikipedia Library, a Jan 2015 review from NSTA Recommends (National Science Teachers Association) for Orangutan Houdini; a March 2010 Animal Investigators review from Choice via ; a March 2014 review of Animal Investigators from Connect via ; the 2009 Burlington Free Press report on Neme and Animal Investigators looks helpful (no photo in this version), and ProQuest also has some further coverage/reviews of Animal Investigators (e.g. NPR interview, local news). WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR notability appears supported by significant independent, reliable, and secondary coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2024 (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.