User talk:StudentQuery

I'm writing to you with some advice here, because you are highly unlikely to get a detailed response at User talk:Jimbo Wales. In fact, your continued commentary there risks being seen as badgering, whether you meant it to be or not.

First read

1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. In this case the $7,500 Humanitarian Award grant from here would not really qualify. If she had won the "GlaxoSmithKline Distinguished Scholar in Respiratory Health" award, it probably would have qualified. The article and her official bios claim the "Forrest M. Bird Lifetime Scientific Achievement" award. Here is the list of winners going back to 1984. She is not on that list
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. This applies academics and to non-academics alike. There are two indicators of that. (a) Her work has been written about extensively and in depth in major sources. There is no evidence of this. One or two reviews and a few mentions in other works are not sufficient. The review of the Louisiana book was by a local genealogist in a column hosted by Claiter's. That does not confer notability on the book, especially a self-published one. (b) Alternatively she would need a citation index of literally hundreds of citations in multiple works or world-wide library holdings in several hundred of libraries. There is no evidence of the latter in WorldCat. See [1].

The problem here is that you (and your other colleagues who participated in the AfD discussion) appear to be connected with the subject in some way (colleagues, students, friends, relatives, etc.). This makes it extraordinarily difficult to take a cold, dispassionate, objective view on whether the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria, or indeed to even accept those criteria as valid. Trust me, the editors who felt the article did not meet the criteria, are all experienced in these types of discussions, as am I. I too would have come down for deletion. An AfD is in no way an evaluation of the subject's talent or accomplishments. It is an evaluation of the available evidence that the subject is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, people close to the subject inevitably react as if a deletion decision reflects the former.

My only suggestion is that if you are truly convinced that in the next few months you'll be able to find multiple published independent articles which discuss this person in depth, you work on a new article at