Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Frank's cats

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 of the debate was no consensus.. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Frank's cats

Consensus for article to be merged but main editor has renamed it instead. Neuropean 19:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:neuropean's vote is not qualified: his first ever edit was deletion notice for this article. `'mikka (t) 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - at last someone is seeing through what the nominatoir is up to. Misuse of WP to make a point. Not only shoudl his vote not count but the AfD should be thrown out. Robertsteadman 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - it hasn't merely been merged it has been extended, other ediotors have added stuff and it is a worthwhile article with plenty of references to famous writings. This is a bad faith nomination by someone out to make a point and should simply get a speedy close. Please look at user: Neuropean's contributions - a clear sockpuppet out to cause trouble and, quite possibly, following a vendetta. Once you look at his/her contributions it is mpossible to assume good faith.Robertsteadman 19:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Neuropean disagrees with you doesn't mean he/she is a sockpuppet. (And Neuropean's edit history looks sizable enough to me.) Vote speedy keep by all means... but please try a bit harder to be nice. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the size of the history (a new user immediately AfDing articles) but the content - [1] - if you look at his/her behaviour and comments it is almosty impossible to assume good faith - this is a sock puppet out to make a point, probablyt continuing a vendetta. It's that simple. Nothing to do with subject matter or disagreemnts on that. Robertsteadman 20:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vendentta, against what? Cats?? Please Don't shoot the messenger. Comment on content, and merit of the article please. Thanks. --Ragib 03:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:'As a teacher I know that there are children who have asked about Anne Frank's cats - this is why the article is valid. Robertsteadman 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You teach music don't you - in a secondary school? What do they ask? Did Anne Frank's cats play the piano? There is, however, a strong possibility that Moortje was used to string one of the violins in your music room, so I see why you have sucah an interestNeuropean 18:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that you would know that isn't it. Yes I do, and, as a composer, I have written pieces about Anne Frank which have been used in school workshops and the children discuss things and ask questions.... and I know FOR FACT that her cats have often been asked about. Robertsteadman 09:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I am not the first editor to suggest that this article be referred. Please AGF and stop throwing accusations of 'bad faith nominations' around. This article was to be merged and your lack of willingness to abide by consensus on this or other articles is causing disruption.Neuropean 19:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down and Merge with Anne Frank I don't understand what the rationale for an expanded separate article on the cats is, and none had been offered. Are we to have articles on the pets of every famous person? Bwithh 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close this AfD and bring it to mediation The opposing parties ought to listen to each other, not accuse each other (no offense to either side, I'm not familiar with the entire history). AfD isn't the proper outlet for dispute resolution. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:' - I agree - this is a vendetta being persued - this nomination is bad faith and is by a sockpuppet. This AfD should have been stopped ages ago. Robertsteadman 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Putting aside the clear hypocricy of RobertSteadman complaining about others violating WP:POINT or resorting to sockpuppetry, the article itself is informative, even if the cats have absolutely no notability other than being owned by Anne Frank at one time or another. At the very worst, the article should be merged with Diary of Anne Frank or People associated with Anne Frank. Resolute 00:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Cats of a semi-famous person, nonsense. Is it a hoax? Medico80 10:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Semi-famous" - you consider Anne Frank to be semi-famous? She wrote one of the best-selling books of all time - to suggest Anne Frank is semi-famous is a nonsense. Robertsteadman 07:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say merge into List of historical cats but that article already has an appropriate entry. If I was asked to list famous cats: only after 20 or so fictional cats (and mostly cartoon at that), would I get to 2 that actually existed :Socks and Kitty (?) the cat that was owned by CoCo the signing gorilla. Why? Because real cats seldom impact culture and generally become "famous" only by association with their owner. Ditto for dogs. I read the book 15 years ago and of all the things I remember from it: that fact that Anne missed a cat she left behind was not one of them. If this AFD actually closes with a firm result (Keep, Delete, or Merge) instead of a wishywashy "discuss a merger (?) REF: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_21#Moortje, I will honor it and say nothing more. I'm done, there's no need for more redundant rebuttal, I won't respond. And I'm not associated w/ neo. ccwaters 11:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and then redirect Moortje to Anne Frank, but delete the renamed "Anne Frank's cats. Under no circumstances is this to be taken as a keep vote; the cat only has relevance in relation to its former owner, and can be covered there sufficiently. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article (redirecting Moortje to Anne Frank as per Nae'blis.). --Ragib 03:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & delete title per Nae'blis. Inner Earth 15:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI believe for GFDL reasons, we'd have to move this back to Moortje to preserve the edit history, then delete the redirect this has become, and finally redirect the cat's actual name to the main article. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with Medico80. BTW, I only came to this page via references on another disputed article. I believe that Rob considers the nominator and I to be socks of each other, but I may be wrong. Strong hints, but not enough for WP:NPA. But this will allow an WP:RFCU to be done using vote-stacking as the reason, if Rob does suspect us, which will solve matters and may reduce the accusations being bandied around. Can I just clarify that we are not socks of each other. HTH. Frelke 06:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - so along with Medico you consider Anne Frank toonly be semi-famous? I think that suggests a misunderstanding of the subjecy totally - one of the best-selling books of all time (I think only outsold by The Bible), studied in most schools..... come off it - to suggest Anne Frank is semi-famous is a nonsense. Robertsteadman 07:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - astonishing how many of the above comments and votes have been cast by members/linked editors to the Ice hockey wikiproject who have been upset that I AfDed an article due to its non-notability Thunder Bay Northern Hawks - this is a bad faith nomination by a sock puppet and several of those who have supported it are out to make a point and settle a score. This should be thrown out. user: Neuropean needs to be looked into. Robertsteadman 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop launching personal attacks just because people are voting against you. Ad hominem attacks are bad, please comment on content. If you have any issues with any particular user, add a note to Administrator's noticeboard or start an Request for comments. Thank you. --Ragib 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are not personal attacks - these are factual. Neuropean is a sockpuppet and it is surprising how many of the Hockey lads are making a point - astonishing how interested they all are in this article. I tried to AGF but it is not possible when there is clear getting their own back going on. It has nothing to do with the way people are voting (but don;t forget AfD is not a vote ebeven though some don;'t get that) - this is people playing sily buggers. Robertsteadman 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All two of them. one keep, one delete. ccwaters 17:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yeah, I was going to mention that. But you know, CC, that every delete vote on this page is just another sockpuppet. Robert will tell you that himself. ;o) Resolute 00:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we can have an article on Data's cat from Star Trek, we can certainly have one on Anne Frank's. - SimonP 11:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bad article if ever I saw one. Two wrongs don't make a right. Rossrs 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the entire content is to go I would be in favour of it. If, however, the compromise is to merge, then I feel even more strongly against this, and would rather see this article kept than merged. Rossrs 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Wikipedia is not paper. The topic is notable by association. About merge proposal: In wikipedia things work in such a way that big articles are split not merged. About trimming: in wikipedia articles are grown basing on verifiable sources, not trimmed basing on tastes of editors. `'mikka (t) 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Tachyon01 01:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Why not? There's sources, it's about a real topic... —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 16:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Anne Frank. Not enough to merit its own article, but the content is certainly worth keeping. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information. There is no doubt whatsoever that Anne Frank is a famous person, yearly over 900,000 people visit the house she lived in [2] and her bestselling diary is translated into at least 23 languages [3]. Still, the cats don't play a crucial role in the diary and are only famous (if they even are) in relation to Anne Frank, so merging them could be a good solution to dissolve the dispute about this particular article. But there is no good reason why there can be several articles about Harry Potter magic and not just one about Anne Frank's cats. I consider the remarks about the names of the cats and their translation as the most interesting and encyclopedic information, I hope that this will be preserved. - Ilse@ 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how her cats are notable. Perhaps this info could be merged into the Ann Frank article, otherwise I see no use for it. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with the notions about the Star Trek cat and Harry Potter magic arguments stated above. Shamrox 23:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Anne Frank. I fail to see how her cats are notable enough to warrant their own article. They seem to be only relevant within her diary. --Tachyon01 01:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Anne Frank. Hopefully she did not have any other pets. —Centrx→talk • 06:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I could write an article on Anne Frank's tree, which is undoubtedly the most famous tree in the Netherlands [4] [5] [6] [7]... Ilse@ 07:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd see no problems with that. If something is famous/natable then it should have an article. Just as these cats should. Robertsteadman 09:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep : This seems to be on the edge of notability for me, but worth the benefit of the doubt.
Merge her cats do not warrant their own article, per above hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 14:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Moved comments to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Anne Frank's cats --Ragib 20:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Robertsteadman 20:34, 1 July 2006 (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.