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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Walker

[edit]

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

Blogger of questionable notability. Very little significant coverage in independent publications - Google news search only shows one reference. Most other sources found are blogs or of questionable verifiability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability as a blogger has already been established as the creator of a "blog to watch", as referenced in the 2007 Daily Front Row article.

Bawana90210 (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite my initial skepticism, the sources currently in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable indpendent sources and hence the article passes WP:N. All that overuse of bold text needs to go, though. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:00, 24 January 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.