None of this addresses the issues I raised with the GP comment, which did not cite a lack of original sources for Phelps or other scientists involved in related work as an explanation for the absence of Wikipedia articles on them. The GP also did not raise it as an issue at all that Phelps’ article might cross into the territory of sounding too much like a primary source.
Phelps is mentioned in many media sources so it would be difficult to claim she does not have enough original sources to support a wikipedia entry.
I must have misunderstood you. I read it as you arguing that some people are lacking in recognition despite significant discoveries.
This is why I highlighted the The written goal of Wikipedia. It is not peoples achievement or work that qualify them for articles. It is the secondary sources that write about people that qualify those people for articles, regardless if those people deserve it or not.
If there is a lot of secondary sources then there should very likely be an article. That is after all the purpose of Wikipedia.
Phelps is mentioned in many media sources so it would be difficult to claim she does not have enough original sources to support a wikipedia entry.
Here are some from prior to the creation of her Wikipedia page. The first 3 include the announcement of her winning an award, news coverage of the same, and a TED talk. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22clarice+phelps%22&rlz=1CD...