Talk:Buurtpoes Bledder

{{Old AfD multi |date=24 January 2020 |result=no consensus |page=Buurtpoes Bledder |date2=24 May 2020 |result2=Keep |page2=Buurtpoes Bledder (2nd nomination)}}

{{dyktalk|15 September|2013|entry= ... that the death of the cat Buurtpoes Bledder (pictured) was covered in national news, including SBS 6 and De Telegraaf?}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|

{{WikiProject Cats|importance=low}}

}}

Remove this article

Why on earth, to put it mildly, does this article exist? And what extraordinary person, to put it mildly, put a reference to it, or allowed it to be put, on the Main Page?

This article is wholly out of place in Wikipedia English. It is so uninteresting that there isn't even a corresponding article in Wikipedia Dutch; the subject matter is mildly funny but only to some students and the odd barman in the Leiden area of the Netherlands. Daily paper De Telegraaf and tv channel SBS 6, mentioned on the Main Page, are known for their non-news.

This whole exercise may be a Leiden students' prank; in that case, well, ha ha. But enough please. Trying to mess up (to put it mildly again) Wikipedia, is for teenagers, not for you, who are all, notoriously, nearing 30.

Why the American English? British English too complicated?

But, again, and most importantly: Wikipedia editors, how did this entry get onto the Home Page? Wikipedia Pollution Security - if there exists such a thing and it should - needs tightening. Surely Wikipedia is not going for the YouTube loveable animals trick?

All in all, I propose to remove this article. An item in Dutch Wikipedia - but much shorter please! - couldn't do much damage, I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collideascope (talkcontribs) 22:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

:DYK articles are selected from new pages that meet certain baseline quality standards. This article clearly meets those standards. There are never grounds for deleting referenced material from an article in order to make it shorter; really, the only time you can do that is when you spin off parts of a massive article into sub-articles. And as this cat, strangely enough, has received coverage from numerous reliable sources, it obviously meets the notability requirements. I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with our well established set of protocols for determining whether an article stays or goes before you tell us you don't think an article should exist. This is not a paper encyclopedia. We don't cut minimally important articles to meet arbitrary length limits. Whether an article stays or goes is determined by whether enough secondary sources exist with which to write a respectable tertiary treatment of the subject. Thanatosimii (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

:: The media coverage was only temporary in August 2013. During the last 6 years there has been any media coverage any more. There is still no article in the Dutch Wikipedia. --Noebse (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

::: Well, the reason why there hasn't been much coverage over the past several years is because Buurtpoes Bledder died in 2013. Wikipedia is filled with countless articles about deceased individuals who are hardly media figures and don't receive coverage/attention in the year 2020. These individuals range from obscure judges in the US justice system to nearly forgotten authors and, yes, celebrity animals. Also: he has received coverage outside of 2013. There was a follow-up on what happened to his remains on the fifth anniversary of his death in 2018 and a segment that aired on Dutch television. I have added this information and the link to the article. Constablequackers (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it does not meet the criteria for a speedy deletion. There are many sources included in the article from national outlets in the Netherlands that collectively make it more than worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Those arguing for the article's deletion have based their argument primarily on the fact that the citations are almost entirely from 2013, which is a rather weak argument. I have also added a newer one from 2018. --Constablequackers (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)