Deletion of Carole Chaski

Comment: I have to ask whether the nom adid the expected search for any additional |additional reliable sources. In about 15 minutes, I have found the following quotes and materials
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: U|RobertKrasy}} - As a new user, you may have missed the behavioral guideline to |assume good faith. While {{U|EEng}} and I may argue the merits of whether the subject of an article meets  or , we assume that our motives, at least, coincide in the effort to make the encyclopedia better. When you make an argument here, please refrain from personal attacks, either in the text you contribute or in the edit summary. I’ve struck your extra votes above, as each person participating only has one vote
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:GNG||WP:ACAD)

Comment: It occurred to me instead of  or , Chaski meets notability under : {{tq|2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.}} Chaski doesn't fit academic criteria, because she left teaching to start a business as an expert witness; she has created a method of analysis in forensic linguistics that is accepted by US State and Federal courts, as verified by inline citations in the article; she is considered a pioneer in forensic linguistics. Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR)