Deletion of Heidi Julia Bender

Comment: I cannot find enough significant |secondary source material to support an article about her at this time.  "Artist and author" is not precisely accurate; the Make-a-Wish foundation printed some of her work, but it doesn't appear to have been published, or reviewed in any significant way.  Although there does appear to be a crater named for her, I can't find any journal articles that discuss that, or any published work that discusses it.  The phrase 'famous indeed' is used, in this context, to affirm that she was important to the people who loved her, even though she was not 'famous' in the more traditional sense of the word.  The article includes no |independently published secondary sources, and I wasn't able to find any with my own search.  I'm sorry, because I'm sure that this article was created by someone who knew and loved her, but I don't think this material is right for Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: The guidelines for determining the notability of a biographical entry are set out in , which states that ''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.".''  Based on this definition, there is a ''prima facie'' argument for notability.  This is not just a simple memorial or sad story.  The fact that the individual has been recognised and honoured by a notable third party organisation does add a level of interest beyond what is usual.  The main problem with the article, as I see it, is the lack of ''published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject'', which is required for Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability.  If the claim of notability can't be verified, then we have a problem.  In this case, the one thing that makes this subject unusual (and therefore arguably a candidate for notability) is referenced with a ''primary'' source (the letter from the International Astronomical Union).  Successfully meeting the notability requirement would require a ''secondary'' source or sources - in other words, other people need to find it interesting or unusual enough to write about it.  Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)