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. ✗plicit 14:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Warner (dancer)[edit]

Marie Warner (dancer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article seems to be existing due to this person becoming a centurion centenarian, rather than having a notable life or career. I cannot find anything to support notability and reaching 100 is not in itself notable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do, of course, mean centenarian, as duly noted by Ipigott. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article subject received a three-paragraph obituary at the time of her death, and searching by name in the Times index fails to turn up anything further. In those days a NY Times obituary was given to many people we would not consider notable. Notability of subject therefore is not established. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe she qualifies as a centenarian.--Ipigott (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Respectfully, I don't think what you or any editor "believes" is a suitable rationale in an afd when it isn't supported by policy. Which WP notability policy, particularly in relation to dancers, suggests that reaching 100 automatically qualifies the person as being notable for an article? Maybe more basically, why does this person pass WP:GNG? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bungle: Hi Bungle and thanks for noticing my comment. It's just that I have followed many previous discussions here in connection with centenarians (both lists and individuals), e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (3rd nomination), where the consensus has weighed in favour of keep. Given obits in the NYT, etc., this factor deserves to be taken into consideration in this case too. We could discuss the semantics of "believe" but I don't think this is the right place although I should perhaps point out that a "centurion" was a Roman soldier.--Ipigott (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, regarding centurion (to which you are very correct, it's just a way in which I am used to pronouncing it), but I am glad you otherwise understood my rationale. For what it's worth, the comparison afd you offered relates to multiple lists comprising multiple individuals. That is very much an entirely different consideration in an afd. I will point out however, that on List of centenarians (sportspeople) (which was part of the aforementioned afd you quote), the entry line reads, "The following is a list of centenarians – specifically, people who became famous as sportspeople — known for reasons other than their longevity". This does inevitably take me back to my direct question, "why does this person pass WP:GNG"? Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that she appeared on stage with Anna Held seems to me to be evidence of notability. You cannot expect the same kind of internet coverage of people who died 1n 1940 as those who died in the 21st century.--Ipigott (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Very well. I respect your right to a view, I just happen to disagree, based on the information offered. For what it's worth, many of my recent article builds and contribs relate to sourcing historic coverage (in fact, I wrote Tommy Burns (diver) from scratch recently, and he died in the 19th century), so I am not unfamiliar with finding historic and archive referencing. If someone is notable enough, there is usually *something*; maybe someone else could find something, or maybe not. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: In the light of the above and the absence of further identified coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I did a deep dive source search in all the relevant places with the TWL and I couldn't find anything at all in any sort of name variations or combinations other than these obituary notices. I just have to assume that either these sorts of performances in the late 1800's were not covered in newspaper sources or, possibly more likely, they're just not digitized yet. Either way, without any indication of further sources existing, I see no reason to keep the article. Silverseren^C 07:19, 4 November 2021 (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.