Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buurtpoes Bledder (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buurtpoes Bledder

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

fan-page without real notability. The Banner talk 20:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is now the third or fourth time this page has been marked for deletion by someone who hasn't taken the time to actually look at the sources involved. Worse yet, no reason beyond a completely false "fan-page without real notability" was provided for why it should be deleted by the nominator. Yes, the page is about a cat, and that might seem silly, but Wikipedia is filled with thousands of even more ridiculous pages with far fewer citations from notable sources. The cat received attention from several national media outlets in the Netherlands that are included in the article and they are right there for the perusual of anyone who doubts the page's legitimacy. Furthermore, this is a topic that has already been debated at length in other deletion nomination discussions. Each time, the decision has been made to keep the page. Why is there the need to now do this all over again, especially after the last one was only a few months ago? Constablequackers (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did took time to look at the unknown sources, the blogs, facebook, the dead links etcetera. The link to Omroep West is in fact the only reliable source. The Banner talk 09:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see the earlier nomination. But to note that: the article was not kept, it was not removed due to lack of consensus. The Banner talk 09:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Okay, in addition to the Omroep West citation, there's also citations from the national paper De Telegraaf, the Leidschdagblad (the daily newspaper for the city), the Leidse Glibber (another publication that covers Leiden), I am Expat (a national website aimed toward expats living in the Nethelands) and at least a mention of coverage from SBS 6. That should be more than enough to merit keeping the article on a website with over 6 million articles, many of which don't have even half as many citations and/or are about subjects that are even more niche. Constablequackers (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every article will be judged on its own merits. So it is useless to compare it with other articles. And Wikipedia is not a memorial. The Banner talk 18:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to judge this article on its own merits then. And the six citations listed above from reputable sources. Furthermore, if "Wikipedia is not a memorial," would you care to explain the many thousands of articles about various other dead animals and humans that are on this website? Constablequackers (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously get the idea that Bledder was your cat, seeing that you wrote this article and are now fighting to keep it.

And about the many thousands of articles about various other dead animals and humans... feel free to nominate them for deletion. But be aware of some repercussions. The Banner talk 13:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bledder wasn't my cat, nor was I the person who created his Facebook page, wrote all those articles, and so on. I did, however, originally create this Wikipedia page. That much is true. Now then, would you please provide an argument as to why this page should be deleted beyond quips like "it's a fan-page" and "Wikipedia is not a memorial"? Furthermore, if you don't like "memorials," I can only assume you'll be placing deletion notices on the pages for everyone from Winston Churchill to that dog who used to hang around outside the train station in Tokyo while waiting for his owner to get off work. But I suppose doing so might result in you potentially facing "repercussions." Those who start needless/highly subjective/repetitious deletion debates about dead cats on Wikipedia get carte blanche and are above the law, eh? :D Constablequackers (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one complaining about those articles... The Banner talk 15:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not. I have no problem with those articles, whereas you're the one taking aim at "memorials." I have no problem with pretty much the entirety of Wikpedia and am perfectly fine with articles about even the smallest and most obscure of topics, provided they've got citations to back up their inclusion on the site. Now then, do you want to discuss this article and its citations, or should we should go back to hurling sarcastic comments and off-topic digressions at one another? Constablequackers (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news, just because slow news cycles cause notice to be given to non-notable subjects does not mean we should follow suit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So, by your logic, we'll need to remove half of the articles on Wikipedia; everything ranging from characters in films and books to small businesses that are all equally reliant on stories supposedly created during similarly "slow news cycles." Constablequackers (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the logic is: every article is judged on its own merits. The Banner talk 15:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - And thus far, the only person here beyond myself who has done so is Cunard. Constablequackers (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia is not news." What does that even mean? Could you elaborate? Constablequackers (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTNEWS The Banner talk 11:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the link. The article clears those bars, so no worries there. Constablequackers (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and everyone above. Let's not compare with other articles (WP:WHATABOUTX). Ifnord (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
This page notes that (translation from Google Translate) "Bledder became known nationally after an article in De Telegraaf because he was the first cat with its own Facebook page." The page includes a photo of a lengthy newspaper article about the subject titled "Buurtpoes Bledder online" that was published in October 2012, 10 months before the subject's death.
SBS6's television program nl:Hart van Nederland covered the subject's August 2013 death in this article as did Algemeen Dagblad here (metadata here), Leidsch Dagblad here, and Omroep West here. This December 2013 article notes that Leidsch Dagblad declared "Buurtpoes" the word of the year in 2013 after the subject's death.
Five years after the subject's death, the subject was covered in this article in Omroep West. The article's first paragraph notes (translation from Google Translate): "Cat Bledder from Leiden has been dead for exactly five years. "Well," you would say. But that is different in Leiden. The cat made the national news before its death and has its own Wikipedia and Facebook page because half of Leiden knew the beast. Bledder has been set up and is being put down for a day in the Velvet record store on the Nieuwe Rijn so that people can stop and talk to him. Students from the house on the Hartesteeg where Bledder still lives, deliver him early Tuesday morning to record store Velvet." The article mentions that the cat made the national news before it died and mentions in passing that he has a Wikipedia page. (I do not consider this passing mention of the cat's having a Wikipedia page to detract from the article's contributing to Buurtpoes Bledder establishing notability since the rest of the article focuses on how the people of Leiden are still remembering the cat.)
That the subject was covered by reliable sources before, at, and after his death demonstrates he has received sustained coverage. That this coverage was in national and regional newspapers and radio stations strongly establishes he is notable.
Cunard (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dutch Wikipedia page is removed and a request to reinstate the article was refused... The Banner talk 17:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that a lot of the sources were published in August, a period know in the Netherlands as "cucumber-time". In that time newspapers lack normal news so they almost publish everything handed to them. The Banner talk 13:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't consider some of the sources' publication in August to detract from their helping establishing notability. The sources are reliable and give the subject serious consideration in their news coverage. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said, they accept nearly every press release. I have seen too often that my own (i.e. work related) press releases were nearly verbatim copied and published by newspaper. The Banner talk 14:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The initial versions of many of these articles (before they were moved into online archives) featured original photography in addition to onsite journalism. The report from 2018 even involved a film crew going down to look at the "stuffed cat" who was put on display in a nearby record store. These were hardly just cut/pasted press releases. And it's not the cat's fault that he was killed by a motorist during August/cucumber time. I'm sorry he didn't die during a more lively news cycle. That motorist should have thought more about how all this was going to impact his Wikipedia page 6 years later!!! Constablequackers (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and others. I question how notable this cat was.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cited sources indicate WP:GNG is met. Notability is not transient. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as above: the sourcing is adequate to establish notability. Notability is not temporary. Ingratis (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tenuous notability, in a fly by night news story that only gained coverage due to social media, the covid virus, and the name, otherwise it would have been totally ignored. Little lasting notability. A 1300 people fan page. Must be the smallest fan page on the planet. No last notability. Single event. scope_creep^Talk 09:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were published between 2012 and 2018 so it is not "a fly by night news story" and the coverage is not owing to "the covid virus". Cunard (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What Cunard said, but I must admit that it's been very frustrating to witness editors like Scope Creep vote "delete" without actually looking at the page or its sources. And the "Covid crisis"? Uhhhh...what? Constablequackers (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, but you do think it is normal to attack voters that vote different from your preference? Could you please show a neutral attitude? The Banner talk 15:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I'm not the only editor here who is having trouble displaying a neutral attitude. Now then, perhaps you can offer a neutral appraisal of why Scope Creep mentioned the Covid crisis in that comment. Constablequackers (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also: it appears that Scope Creep has voted "delete" twice in this discussion. There's this one and another above. Should one of them be removed? Constablequackers (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing: no. Striking the second vote is possible. I shall do that. The Banner talk 11:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted completely the 2nd vote, making closer's life easier. -The Gnome (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it's been struck out. I switched "delete" to "comment." I've never had to field this particular situation on Wikipedia. Is this a reasonable solution or no? Constablequackers (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in national in Dutch media, including in 2018 five years after Bledder's demise.--Eostrix (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2020 (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.