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. The issue here is whether this man was notable outside of his alleged connection to Anne Frank. If not, our guidelines suggest that he should be covered in an article about her, if at all. But arguments have been made here that he was in fact notable for other reasons, based on the sources cited in the article. And on that question, there's no consensus in this discussion. Sandstein 08:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold van den Bergh (notary)[edit]

Arnold van den Bergh (notary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:1E. Obscure notary who in a recent book was accused of possibly being the betrayer of Anne Frank. That accusation is disputed (as noted in the article) and subject has no notability other than that disputed allegation. Should be deleted or merged into Anne Frank. If his guilt was not disputed and was well-established, there would be justification for a separate article on this person. But it is disputed and is not well-established or accepted by scholars at this point in time. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: "Obscure" is not really the right word here… please try to keep any proposal WP:NPOV and contribute personal viewpoints as part of the discussion. —Sladen (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The theory about his involvement is already covered in Anne Frank#Source of discovery. Cullen328 (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:1E as per nominator. I concur with the nominator's full reasoning. At this time, a blurb on this accusation in the Anne Frank article is sufficient. Safiel (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (as noted elsewhere). I'm slightly unclear how facilitating the Jacques Goudstikker / Alois Miedl / Hermann Göring art stuff (returned via the 2006 Goudstikker restitution of 202 paintings) would fit on the Anne Frank article. Presently there is a single sentence in the article body related to the Frank theory, balanced by another sentence citing a counter-argument. —Sladen (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, fails WP:1E. Severestorm28 22:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Details sourced information about his life aside from his alleged implication in the Anne Frank arrest. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominators arguments. MartinWilder (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DrewieStewie's arguments. Ordnerud (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my nomination. There would be no article were it not for the controversial Anne Frank claim, hence my citing of WP:1E. The article has been expanded since the nomination, utilizing largely Dutch-language original research/synthesis. based on fragmentary references such as one mention of the man in this document (see p. 76) to flesh out his supposed role in another controversy, using enormously lengthy footnotes to flesh out the synthesis. Lamentably the expanded material only adds other issues and does not address notability concerns. Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple:, appreciations for returning to Wikipedia, and contributing additional input.

1. It is fairly usual that articles get expanded: for example, if an editor raises concerns about WP:Notability, it is usual to see additional citations added, documenting WP:Notability.
2. We can see a new edit Special:Diff/1068130241/1068867655 (from yesterday) tagging {{Original research}} and, here on the AfD, also stating "lengthy footnotes" but… inspection of the article shows zero footnotes and all sentences individually referenced, including with |quote= and |trans-quote= for the benefit of readers (and editors) who may find working with scans of historic documents in multiple languages difficult—a situation unavoidable when the subject was active 70‒100 years ago, and in The Netherlands.
3. Likewise, the formatting of Dutch names can vary; so in An interim Report on the Art Activities of Hermann Goering (1945) [in English] (cited fully in the article, and URL-linked above) the subject is named as both "van der Bergh" and "A. v.d. Bergh". To assist readers (and other editors) these names have been wikilinked using {{ill}} so that transcription differences like Hermann Göring/Goering are (hopefully) less confusing to readers (and editors).

In summary: editors are generally happy to attempt to address any concerns and to improve articles (that is the basis of Wikipedia), but it requires effort (and cooperation) on the part of those initiating AfD (and/or similar processes) to clearly spell out (ie. precisely and exactly) those concerns. Is that something you'd be willing to do? —Sladen (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily. Not only did this so-called event or his alleged role change the course of history, but the article clearly states and sources that he was a notable notary during his life. That's all that matters here. Trillfendi (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - with multiple sources, and seems to make reasonable claims of notability, think its an easy keep. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (Follow-up) Comment: @Coretheapple (initiator) …another week has gone by without initiating a discussion on Talk:Arnold van den Bergh (nor replying at this AfD) regarding the precise basis for subsequently adding {{Original research}} and {{Primary sources}} tags.
  Per WP:WTRMT "[it is] strongly recommend[ed] that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed", then it would appear appropriate to remove those newly-added {{Original research}} and {{Primary sources}} tags: because without having precise details, it will remain (extremely) difficult to attempt to "address" any asserted problems.
  —Sladen (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC) (Note, in the mean-time Gidonb, enacted by Synoman Barris, have moved the article to Arnold van den Bergh).[reply]

  Sladen, shit I didn't notice the AFD tag on the article when moving it, otherwise I could have declined it immediately. I don't know what's wrong with my browser that I could see it. I will revert my move until this AFD is closed. Cheers and thanks for the ping Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 10:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Synoman Barris:, don't think there was actually a problem with the move. It was simply noting that the Article (and therefore the Talk: page—where Coretheapple might have left any reply—would have also moved during the course of discussion. (And there appears to still be no reply, so the matter is somewhat mute). —Sladen (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of a problem moving when in AfD. Maybe someone could explain this one to me. We always continue improving articles while in AfD! I saw the article as it was in AfD. Please move again to the correct location right after the discussion because, as we have no article on another person by this name, this is a totally trivial move and the current name is WRONG. I would have rather had it at the correct location all the time. gidonb (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb:, again, don't think there is/was a problem with proposing the move. The (notary) disambiguated article name was following Dutch Wikipedia and because there's another Arnold van den Bergh [nl] (1857‒1932) (also from Oss…) (one of the sons of Simon van den Bergh who was was involved with Margarine Unie and founding of the Unilever empire. (ie. a disambig might be better in the long-run). Regarding "after the discussion", if the article should be kept/deleted, then please say so (here on the AfD), along with justification!… —Sladen (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sladen, I did say so here and on the other page. We should never disambiguate where there is nothing to disambiguate, just because of some situation at Nlwiki. Went into lots of trouble and now a necessary improvement is undone. Synoman Barris, can you put the article back at Arnold van den Bergh? Your first move was perfect! gidonb (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb,Sladen Per WP:EDITATAFD there is a clause Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion and Articles at AFD's should never be created into redirects. If this article is kept just post a request at WP:RM/TR or a ping will do and it will be immediately moved back. Cheers Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 07:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Synoman Barris, thanks. Will do. gidonb (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; there's no justification in merging such a lot of information about van den Bergh into the Anne Frank article because the evidence is so disputed. Nevertheless, the accusation links him to a piece of history that is very relevant and interesting to WP's readers, who may therefore have a legitimate interest in his background and who he was. I know this is close to notability-by-inheritance, but it's more about fulfilling an encyclopaedia's role of providing background to important subjects and periods in history. He also clearly played a much wider role in society at the time, and there is no shortage of stuff written about him, even before the allegations. I think it's interesting enough, and well-enough sourced, to keep. Elemimele (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re your point and Sladen's above, since this nomination the article has been padded with primary sources, and synthesis. There are no secondary sources for the new material added. With that surplusage stripped out, there is very little that needs to be added to the Anne Frank article as it currently exists, if anything. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2022 (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.