I guess I can't say I'm a fan of the way she went about this though, after reading some of what she's written:
Her comment:
"The problem is not that she’s not notable, or that @Wikipedia editors are a bunch of sexist trolls waiting to jump on the bio of an impressive scientist"
Seems to be in reply to this comment:
"There is a lack of significant independent coverage. Getting an award from the local YWCA does not help her meet any notability criteria. As a for notability as a scientist, my search in Google Scholar found a grand total of 1 citation of papers she has authored or co-authored. Just because she works for the government doesn't mean she can't publish papers (and she has), the only restriction is if her work is classified. Her participation in the discovery of element 117 appears to have been very minor. Her name does not appear in the Oak Ridge publication "The Discovery of Element 117". Her Oak Ridge autobio says her part of the discovery of the new element was to "contribute ... to the purification of the Bk-249 used to help discover Z=117". Sounds like a very minor role in an undertaking involving a large number of people. I don't see convincing evidence that she is notable as a scientist or meets WP:GNG. I agree with the others who cited WP:TOOSOON as an issue."
This is all found on the wikipage that was part of the original article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
Which I honestly find pretty reasonable. If you were to make a Wikipedia article for every college professor, we'd have a pretty bloated Wikipedia, lol.
That said, I really do hope that maybe we could focus on quality vs quantity. I don't doubt that there are 1000 people out there deserving of a Wikipedia page... I also don't doubt that perhaps some of her examples don't really qualify, given Wikipedia's guidelines.