Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Gimber Kuhn

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Gimber Kuhn[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two stage performances in America `50 years ago; no significant media reference. Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:NACTOR as the Winter Garden was a major theater in the United States during that era. Here's a biographical sketch published in 1870. She was mentioned seven times in Annals of the New York Stage: 1857-1865. This shows that she performed under her maiden name Sophie Gimber with John Wilkes Booth, one of the country's top actors before he assassinated Abraham Lincoln. She was mentioned here in the diary of Lincoln's assistant John Hay. Here's information on an 1863 performance at the Academy of Music in New York. Here's information about an 1862 performance at the Holliday Street Theater in Baltimore. Yes, the article is a stub but we ought to strive to include biographies, even brief ones, of notable 19th cerntury stage performers. With work, these biographies can be improved over time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since she meets notability requirements for entertainers: Has had significant roles in multiple...stage performances. We shouldn't punish her for being a stub. Lets encourage expansion, especially in light of the Booth/Lincoln connection above. Arghonaut (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)[1]

Keep Notable then is just fine. We do not expect someone who died 145 years ago to have headlines today. It's a stub. So what. We allow and expect stubs on notable topics to grow over time and through regular editing, without requiring their deletion for being stubby. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. The sources already in the article are sufficient to meet the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she meets GNG. —Hahc 21 05:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets notability requirements, has sources and is a puzzle piece for history to a bygone era. It was like being a Broadway star, even as a stub, it should be kept. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2012 (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.