Deletion of Laurel Neme

Comment: It is a |BLP
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

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 , 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  is met
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:GNG)

Comment: There is coverage, but it does not appear to be significant as required by . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per the top of , 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PEOPLE||WP:CREATIVE)