Merely the number of primary sources, here (quite literally, with the subject of the article being the or an author on most citations, here) is problematic. We need to see additional secondary sources, to start. The prose of the article needs some adjusting, and we can address that and possible notability issues once the citations have been addressed (just as heads-up, this is looking a little shaky notability-wise... but I will reserve judgement until further secondary sources are presented).

Unfortunately we still have the same problems with a lack of sufficient reliable independent secondary sources which talk directly about the subject of this article (Lamas), as opposed to things which he is working on, with him mentioned in passing. I think the most useful approach might be to work backwards - find three independent secondary sources which talk directly about the professor himself as their main focus, and then use the information you find in those sources to build the article. That way you know you have a solid base which asses notability, and you can go in and add all the rest once the article is approved. Otherwise I suspect we are going to continue to have this same problem… Good luck, you’re doing a great job, so keep it up 👍