Deletion of Robert Kirk

Comment: Sorry, but you have no secondary sources in the article that back up your claims that he meets .  The first criterion is that they are a significant expert.  Where is that backed up?  In the article you prove that he published and was reviewed by other academics in academic journals.  So has every other full professor in the world.  The second criterion is that they  are regarded as important - I don't see that backed up in any source in the article.  So on down the list. You need independent, secondary sources stating how and why he is notable.—&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROFTEST)

Comment: probably a borderline case but I want to note that being an emeritus professor or having written a bunch of reviews (!) is clearly not sufficient. The key question, which supporters have failed to address, is whether there exist sufficient third-party coverage of his work to built an article in line with . I'm not saying that's not possible but this should be the issue
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT)

Comment: fails .  Well, yes, there are a lot of publication credits there, but do we have any sense that his collective body of work is deemed significant in the field, as  requires?  With a directed Google search to weed out similarly named professors of economics and art, there are only 624 hits, and even there a lot of them are for other people; I don't get a sense here that he's all that much of a pioneer as all of that.  My mind could change with some genuine attribution
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT||WP:PROFTEST)