Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tana Louise


 * 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   keep.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 20:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tana Louise

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

I can't find significant coverage for this porn star. Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep - Not a porn star, but an old-timey Bettie Page-ish pinup model. So WP:PORNBIO is not applicable. Google search reveals many photo archives and a community of fans. I think she meets #2 and possibly #3 of WP:ENTERTAINER but more discussion and investigation is needed. Therefore I have a "weak" vote but I encourage more discussion in this direction. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 10:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Tana Louise is mentioned only once in a long list of other models in the book Burlesque: legendary stars of the stage by Jane Briggeman. So I think she fails dead trees notability for a separate bio. I don't know how much javasbachelorpad.com, the only source used in the article, counts towards establishing notability. Pcap ping  11:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. J04n(talk page) 13:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Found a bit more, added some references and a bit more info to the article to meet WP:GNG, and as Doomsdayer520 points out criterion 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER by the volume of profiles and pictorials of her 55 years after her peak. J04n(talk page) 02:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for using Wikipedia as source for this article. ([WP]: there means the entry is from Wikipedia). retrojunkie.com's page also shares a significant amount of text with the wiki article (don't know who copied from who). The other references you added are just picture galleries that verify the sentence: "Her following is extended into the 21st century over the internet with profiles and pictorials." Pcap ping  07:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it meant 'World Press' or something, I suppose these is nothing out there then. Seems a shame though J04n(talk page) 11:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, but no need to be rude about it. Just an honest mistake, if a little careless. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to be rude. Sorry if I seem that way. Pcap ping  16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense taken :) J04n(talk page) 16:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep When you use Google news search, it has a lot of hits. By adding in the word burlesque I was able to find a dozen certain hits concerning this person.  She had plenty of coverage in a notable magazine back in the 50's also.   D r e a m Focus  01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * note to Dream Focus: I went through all of those hits plus dozens more in an attempt to expand the article but they are just ads for her appearances. J04n(talk page) 08:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 09:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with complete understanding that notability is not temporary... even for a dancer who had her peak 40 years before Wikipedia was ever created., . Yes, she started being touted in 1950 , and I was surprised that she was sued by Tina Louise in 1957  and that the suit was still dragging on in 1959.... but it is unrealistic to assume that she will be in news articles nearly 60 years later. The article may always be a stub, but that's okay.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete, I don't think significant coverage can be found via google, but that doesn't mean it does exist in some dead tree form. Polarpanda (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found; see WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a couple of extremely short news pieces on a lawsuit between her and a real celebrity amount to in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Pcap ping  00:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I know that I've done more flip-flopping than John Kerry on this one but come on, we can find news clippings of her hitting other strippers and getting sued by a star from Gilligan's Island from 50 years ago! She has been mentioned in Billboard twice. Let's keep this article!  Surely it meets WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 00:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.