Talk:Buurtpoes Bledder

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buurtpoes Bledder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://sphotos-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/s720x720/577222_421584067959721_909592640_n.jpg
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://sphotos-b-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/969829_422271854557609_1814527961_n.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107170624/http://www.vandaag.nl/leiden/nieuws/article26411163.ece/Buurtpoes-is-regionaal-woord-van-het-jaar to http://www.vandaag.nl/leiden/nieuws/article26411163.ece/Buurtpoes-is-regionaal-woord-van-het-jaar

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 11 November 2016 (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)