Deletion of Ana Achúcarro

Comment: I don't see grounds for speedy (though it may ) unless nom withdraws. Agree with nominator on the contents of the article and that sourcing of this article, in terms of  and RS issues, leaves a lot to be desired (hint - sometimes less is more - using a few high-quality refs is better than a large number of low-quality ones). However, the subject clearly passes (1) - per https://scholar.google.co.il/scholar?start=0&q=author:%22Ana+Achucarro%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 google scholar (not you need to search without the diacritic ú as many papers only have u - and you get significant less results than ú) - our subject has a h-index of around 26. Her two top cited papers (on which she is the first named author) have 1,087 and 333 citations respectively - this has her comfortably passing NPROF which is one of the very few SNGs that actually overrides GNG (which she possibly does not pass per my very quick check - Eppstein's links above seem to be interviews with the subject herself - which do not establish SIGCOV - however this is all moot given NPROF(1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:BLPPRIMARY||WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: In addition to the good points made by others, note that  relates to events not people and un-of-the-mill is an |essay and so is just opinion with no significant force.  The nomination is therefore reaching, contrary to 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:R||WP:ESSAY||WP:FORCEDINTERPRET)

Comment: I typed "Ana Achucarro" into Google Scholar and the first result was a paper she wrote with 1,000+ cites, the next one is 330+, the next is 280+, etc. https://www.mendeley.com/authors/6701637466 Mendeley reports 3,250+ citations and an h-index of 26 (is that good?). The sources David posts above look like they could be , and then reading that she is a Member of the Academia Europaea https://www.ae-info.org/ae/Member/Achucarro_Ana (https://www.ae-info.org/ae/Acad_Main/Membership/Becoming_a_member by invitation only and follows a rigorous peer review selection process) seems to clinch it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Her works are highly cited, it passed  |NACADEMIC#1. Do note, academics do not have a lot of IS to generated  like other BLP especially those of in the field entertainment or sports
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Did you know that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability&type=revision&diff=894769618&oldid=894764961 women academics are twice as likely to be nominated for deletion as you would expect from the proportion of women among Wikipedia biographies? This seems to be a case in point. She has huge citation counts, easily passing #C1, and is a member of Academia Europaea, passing #C3. The source in the article from the NWO (the Dutch scientific funding agency) with her name in the title is in-depth, reliable, and independent, so that nomination claim is false too. https://www.ondacero.es/programas/julia-en-la-onda/audios-podcast/entrevistas/ana-achucarro-parece-muy-logico-pensar-que-haya-vida-otros-planetas_20140611553fea060cf21d2cb1b44905.html This, https://www.elcultural.com/noticias/buenos-dias/Ana-Achucarro/2505 this, and https://culturacientifica.com/2015/08/30/un-universo-inesperado-por-ana-achucarro/ this also look like usable sources. Bad nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)