Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Rowsell
He seems to be quite knowledgeable on his chosen topics, but I just can't find anything to show that he's notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. He hasn't been the focus of any coverage that has been specifically about him or his works and he wouldn't qualify under  since his work hasn't really been picked up anywhere, or at least not in the places Wikipedia would consider for that criteria. It's actually incredibly difficult to argue notability for scholars since they rarely get the amount of coverage or references necessary to pass GNG or ACADEMIC and Roswell is just another scholar who falls short of what is needed. This doesn't mean that he can't be good at what he does, just that it's really hard to pass guidelines. I think that the best I found was https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-0e7b-Runes,-ruins-and-revelations this review by the Morning Star (British newspaper)|Morning Star, which is considered a tabloid on here
— User:Tokyogirl79, 06:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:ACADEMIC (Wikipedia:Notability)