Deletion of Roy Eriksen

Comment: I quote guideline: "''Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Academics|Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.''" Certainly this person's works can be at least be verified in the English language, but  encourages that we do not normally expect in-depth English sources for someone who has his work and notability in Norway|a non-English language country. I encourage we be more active than the delsort I placed above in seeking input from those editors able to read and search Norwegian databases for information about this man, and place just a little less trust in a ''Find sources'' template tuned to search English-language sources.  We're cautioned ny  that "''This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as , ,  etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.''"  So again, rather than judging him be what we can find (or not) in English, I would hope a Norwegian wikipedian comes forward and offers an language-specific analysis per 's #Criteria|Criteria, #General notes:|General notes, and #Notes to specific criteria:|Notes to specific criteria, as what can be determined as worthy of notice to Academia in Norway, should be good enough for us at en.Wikipedia. And I am led by  to its #Citation metrics|Citation metrics and its caution therein that Web of Knowledge and Scopus would be the better choices than a English-language Google scholar search, specially as it further cautions "''Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles''" and that Google Scholar "''For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey.''" One would have to agree that this particular academic is not involved in a scientific subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:CSB||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:BIO||WP:MUSIC||WP:AUTH||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: Happy to change my position if evidence surfaces, but I don't see any evidences that subject meets notability requirement.  referred to by Dr. Blofeld don't appear to include any items that reflect coverage ''of'' the subject, and the books and articles written by the subject don't appear to have been reviewed or cited in a manner that demonstrates notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:GHITS)

Comment: I started looking in indexes for sources and have started listing them on Talk:Roy Eriksen|the article talk page. There are reviews that focus just on his work as well as ones that review his work along with others. The reviews for ''The Building in the text'' alone surely qualify him for 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: as '':no:Wikipedia:Relevanskriterier'', aka meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)