The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rowanne Pasco

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion recommended: does not appear to have reached threshold for notability. Quis separabit? 20:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this sweep of British newspapers came up dry although I did not check further, and I am willing to change my view based on new information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.