Talk:Peter van Pels

message: This article article does not cite any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (which would establish notability per WP:NOTE), nor does it even assert any notability other than as  one of the people associated with Anne Frank -- which already has its own article. HrafnTalkStalk 14:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one else has taken up this theme in six months. I don't think there is the slightest chance that a nomination for deletion would succeed. I am going to remove the tag. Wimstead (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it hard to believe that you don't know as well as I do that there are umpteen published sources in multiple languages that refer to this person. The fact that no one has added any is not evidence that they don't exist. Your allegation that sources don't exist is ludicrous, and only their non-existence is a reason for deletion, not their absence from the current draft. If you want to remedy their absence, you may do so. If you want the article deleted, nominate it. But the nomination will fail, as you probably know. There is no rule against articles against people who are only notable in a single context, and there are hundreds of articles about people only notable for their connection with a more famous person which would be certain to survive a deletion nomination. The people who were in the annexe with Anne Frank are individually more famous than many of the people with articles based on their separate achievements, and accordingly people will wish to read about them. It is desirable to have separate articles because it would be impossible to give a coherent narrative for each person in a single article without making that article indigestible.  In these circumstances, it is disruptive to leave a tag on this article. I repeat, if you want the article deleted, nominate it. Otherwise leave it alone: tags are not designed to provide anyone with an opportunity to make a standing complaint about an article, but to address matters that can be dealt with. The only way to address your concern is to delete the article. Unless you are prepared to nominate the article for deletion, your position is untenable.  Wimstead (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that vacuous, substance-free rant. If you are so certain "that there are umpteen published sources" then cite the bloody things -- WP:BURDEN applies. You quite clearly have failed to read my point #3 above, so I will ignore complete your specious demands that I AfD this article. Unless and until you have something substantive to say, that actually addresses the points I am making, I have nothing further to say to you. HrafnTalkStalk 05:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability  

message: The article hasn't a photo of Hitler's victim.This site: [] has his photo.Agre22 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: The article appears to contradict itself as to which concentration camp Peter van Pels ended up/died in. The lead states he died in Mauthausen. The body states he was sent to Westerbork and thence to Auschwitz, where presumably he died. HrafnTalkStalk 03:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction