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. AdmrBoltz 01:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meriel Sawle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No claim of notability. Google results are primarily derivative from this article or fansites and include no news results. Can find very little indication of the author's notability either. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 01:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The topic does not meet the general notability guideline. The article is a plot-only description of a fictional work, written in-universe perspective that lacks real-world perspective and it has zero verifiability because it has no references. Jfgslo (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2011 (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.