Deletion of Rhonda Patrick

Comment: I am offended, on so many levels, that this file is nominated not only for deletion but is tagged as a hoax. What part of  was done here? If one doesn't even understand naming conventions of women, how can one assess a file for anything? First, a simple look at "scholar" shows she is publishing with Bruce Ames (BN Ames). Would he be assessed as a hoax? Would he likely be jointly publishing with someone who was? Clearly the sourcing on the files establishes notability. ''The Telegraph'', "Patrick and Ames, both well-respected scientists in the field of autism"; the ''Boston Globe'', "work by Ames and Patrick is significant". Are you questioning the reliability of the San Francisco Chronicle, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, etc.? Does this sound like the woman is a hoax? http://body.io/body-io-fm-15-dr-rhonda-patrick/ - unsigned comment was by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Most of this content is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's place as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia summarizes existing published work and is not a place for publishing original research or thought. I fail to identify the evidence that this article passes  or that this person passes . I am looking for 2-3 sources which feature this person as their subject - someone please point only those 2-3 sources to me. I see 0 right now. Even if this article is kept almost all of it except 2-3 sentences is likely to need deletion for being 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:OR)