Generally, that is what happens. A topic spontaneously becomes available for a Wikipedia article when a third-party source of sufficient notability comes into e

Generally, that is what happens. A topic spontaneously becomes available for a Wikipedia article when a third-party source of sufficient notability comes into existence. This is a discontinuous process. You say that the decision was "mistaken" as though Wikipedia and the Nobel committee pass judgements of the same nature. But the function of Wikipedia's editors is not to judge whether her scientific work constitutes an "outstanding contribution for humanity" (for which they are evidently ill-equipped), nor is it to judge whether there exist sources which would confer some level of notability on her. It is only to judge whether the particular sources presented confer some level of notability. Looking at the rejected article, the only references are to a paper she published and two biographies on the websites of organizations she belongs to. There is no evidence that "the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (from "Notability (academics)"). Anyway, I don't see why an encyclopedia should presage notability in the first place. It works the other way around. Now that she has been awarded the Nobel and her impact is beyond all contention "demonstrated by independent reliable sources", she gets a Wikipedia article. That's how it's supposed to work isn't it?