# Talk:Flaco (owl)

@RoySmith: Thanks for taking the time to give the photo an edit. Ideally Flaco would've stepped into the sun, but IMO it looks kind of artificial. I know things like a brighter subject, applying filters, increasing contrast/clarity/dehaze kinds of settings, etc. makes for a poppier thumbnail, but I tend to prefer natural subjects (to the extent an animal bred in captivity is natural) appear [mostly] natural. I might be biased, though, so putting them both here in the hope of getting additional input. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the original version is better. The edit was overcooked imo Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I tried to follow the "do as little as possible, then back it off 20%" rule of retouching, but yeah, I can see how this didn't help.  I've reverted it.  Somebody's got to teach these critters about lighting. RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I think it was a solid attempt Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Roy. And yeah, birds and lighting... most of them are so bad at it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This article should be deleted not promoted in "Did you know?". Wikipedia should have much higher standards for communities with major news outlets located in them. WP:NOTNP
This article is nothing more than a local story that is promoted mostly by major news organizations and nonprofit organizations located in the New York City area with a very high concentration of Wikipedia editors in NYC to fight for its inclusion. Being from the Midwest, edits and article of "local news" or local content are continually deleted for lack of relevance, not enough sources, or the lack of regional editors to champion them for inclusion. 
Wikipedia has been criticized for and acknowledged its many Systemic bias including, but not limited to, gender, racial biases, and bias of content related to the United States and Western Europe. Wikipedia has tried to rectify it understanding the biases of its own editors as well as historic biases resulting in the lack of content available for certain groups and subjects. But there has been little discussion or acknowledgment of surrounding biases of resource rich urban areas with high concentrations of major news media outlets, higher educational organizations, corporate headquarters, as well as just a high concentration of wealth overall resulting in over-coverage in Wikipedia versus the under-coverage of areas that lack these resources including rural, small towns and cities and populated areas in economic distress. 
It is understandable why there would be many more Wikipedia articles about major metropolitan areas. Wikipedia however needs to acknowledge the biases that result in an over production of articles from these metropolitan areas with resources and a lack of articles on those areas without resources. This issue is much larger than one little owl. I wish the Wikipedia community would recognize issue and work on it. 18:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Myotus (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, he's a pretty big owl.
(Sorry.) Fireant314 (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Correction - this issue is much larger than one BIG owl. Myotus (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
In addition to multiple feature-length stories in NYT, WSJ, and the New Yorker, the article cites The Guardian, CBS News, Associated Press, The Independent, NPR, Fortune, Inside Edition, Late Night with Seth Myers, ABC News, Le Monde, CNN, Slate, and Smithsonian. If it were just covered in local news, it wouldn't be notable, but like it or not Flaco is international news. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The Guardian has several correspondents based New York City
Wilfred Chan | Emma Brockes | Amanda Holpuch | and possibly more...
From Wikipedia's article on The Guardian
In 2007, the paper launched Guardian America, an attempt to capitalise on its large online readership in the United States, which at the time stood at more than 5.9 million. The company hired former American Prospect editor, New York magazine columnist and New York Review of Books writer Michael Tomasky to head the project and hire a staff of American reporters and web editors.
The Independent US web office is in NYC
CBS News Headquarters "CBS Broadcast Center 530 West 57th Street New York City, New York 10019"
The Associated Press (AP) "is an American not-for-profit news agency headquartered in New York City"
Inside Edition "based at Studio 45 at the CBS Broadcast Center in Manhattan" (NYC)
Late Night with Seth Meyers "originates from NBC Studio 8G in the Comcast Building at 30 Rockefeller Center in New York City"
Fortune Magazine "is an American global business magazine headquartered in New York City."
ABC News Headquarters: Lincoln Square 47 West 66th Street Upper West Side, Manhattan New York City, United States
Le Monde Sylvie Kauffmann was the Le Monde "New York bureau chief" from 1996 - 2001 (I am unsure who their New York bureau chief now) later Kauffmann was editor-in-chief of Le Monde and currently an editor at Le Monde.  Kauffmann contributes to the opinion pages of The New York Times International Edition.
CNN while headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia CNN operates a bureau New York City  additionally CNN is "(presently owned by the Manhattan-based media conglomerate Warner Bros. Discovery)"
Slate "is based in New York City"
Smithsonian Magazine While the Smithsonian Institution headquarters and the Smithsonian Magazine's editorial office is in Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Magazine's main advertising office is headquartered in New York City.
However...
But even if the Minneapolis StarTribune or the Wichita Eagle were to run stories on Flaco all that it would show is that they likely picked up the story from the AP - a local New York City news source. Additionally beyond the issue that this is nothing more than a local non-notability non-relevant news story, the article itself excessively detailed it should at best be a sub heading in the Central Park Zoo article.
Wikipedia's General notability guideline states "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. In particular:
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Wikipedia is not a newspaper
What the Flaco article demonstrates (and many other Wikipedia articles on New York City as well as other major metropolitan areas) is Urban bias. The Pew Research Center report "One-in-five U.S. newsroom employees live in New York, Los Angeles or D.C." showcases 12 percent of all U.S. newsroom employees—reporters, editors, photographers, live in New York City while only 7 percent of the U.S. working-age population lives in New York City.
And that that the percentage is increasing as the rise of digital news sites further have increased at greater percentages in New York City and the East Coast general while the number of newsroom employees at U.S. newspapers continue to plummet. This is not just a problem for Wikipedia but effects how all of our news coverage and information is skewed such as on the damage caused by climate change and political coverage. Myotus (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Location is relevant to notability only insofar as it concerns audience, not offices and staff. No argument from me that yes, press/publishing is biased towards large urban centers, towards rich countries, and towards popular subjects like athletes, movies, YouTubers, and yes, charismatic celebrity birds. Wikipedia indeed reflects those biases. If you're looking to have a conversation about WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, we can do that, but it doesn't change that this isn't even an edge case -- it's unambiguously notable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Sigh. I see you WP:PRODded an article -- a process that's used exclusively for uncontroversial deletions. Please see WP:POINT. You can nominate it at WP:AFD if you really think that Flaco has not received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, but it will absolutely be WP:SNOW closed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
My apologies. While I have been on Wikipedia for years this is the first time I have nominated an article for deletion. I will work to correct it. Again 'notable' does not guarantee a wikipedia article. Myotus (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Again, in the General notability guidelines significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee I imagine the issue with Wikipedia's overcoverage of trivial details about New York City (but well covered by New York media) is much like overcoverage of Star Wars by its fanbase on Wikipedia as well - However even the amount of Star Wars info on Wikipedia as been curtailed and Star War fans have at least created the Wookieepedia to document the minutiae of Star Wars. Myotus (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I imagine the issue with Wikipedia's overcoverage of trivial details about New York City (but well covered by New York media) - This article is not merely well covered by New York media unless you use a personal definition of "New York media" that doesn't have a basis in our policies. Look, if you actually think there's any chance at all that a deletion discussion won't end in keep, nominate it and we'll continue discussion there. If you understand that it will be kept, nominating it for deletion would be WP:POINT. To me it is quite obvious that it will be kept, but I appreciate that the article creator might not be the most persuasive testimony for you. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Instead of "punching down" onto NYC coverage, it would be more beneficial to improve coverage on topics in less prominent regions. We can't control what the sources say, but we can try to increase our coverage of non-NYC topics. Also, while the GNG says that "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article", in practice all articles that meet the GNG are kept if they have enough significant, in-depth, reliable, and sustained coverage.I can't say that Star Wars is an apt comparison. Wookieepedia exists to provide details on fictional aspects of a franchise that may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. NYC is a real-world topic with much in-depth coverage that is suitable for Wikipedia itself. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here because there is sustained coverage from reliable secondary sources that's also in-depth. This has actually been covered in depth in national news sources as well (see for example CNN and NPR), and international news sources (e.g. The Independent and The Guardian), not just "local news sources". Many of these sources will have bureaus in NYC, because NYC is a global city. Administrators are not going to be likely to delete an article just because it has been covered by sources that have bureaus in NYC. While there's always going to be bias toward large cities in English-speaking or highly developed countries - for instance, this story likely wouldn't have been covered if it had occurred in Addis Ababa - neither should we completely discount any news source that has a relation to one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world.Yes, there is a bias toward large global cities, especially in first-world countries. But that does not mean you should disruptively PROD a page that clearly meets the GNG. (And I'll admit that I had doubts about this article myself when it was created in February 2023. However, the amount of coverage since then means that it should not have been prodded, especially as much of the coverage is in-depth.) – Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Is this a serious post?  I ask because I've been following this story for an entire year, along with everyone else.  I think a year's worth of news coverage is sufficient for an encyclopedia article. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Despite it all, he ends up dead on the 23rd. :( AMCKen (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Having a passion and interest in a story or subject is not grounds for its inclusion into Wikipedia. By "everyone else" are you talking about all of world or just Flaco's fan base in NYC? Myotus (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@Myotus: You are free to go to AfD on this article; nobody can stop you.
It will not be a surprise to you that I look with wonder at those majestic creatures who soar above us. Birds—particularly birds of prey—can attract great interest from humans. And Saint Francis even sought it fit to preach to them, saying:
My little sisters the birds, you owe much to God, your Creator, and you ought to sing his praise at all times and in all places, because he has given you liberty to fly about into all places; and though you neither spin nor sew, he has given you a twofold and a threefold clothing for yourselves and for your offspring. Two of all your species he sent into the Ark with Noah that you might not be lost to the world; besides which, he feeds you, though you neither sow nor reap. He has given you fountains and rivers to quench your thirst, mountains and valleys in which to take refuge, and trees in which to build your nests; so that your Creator loves you much, having thus favored you with such bounties. Beware, my little sisters, of the sin of ingratitude, and study always to give praise to God.
When God sings with all his creation, will an owl not be part of the choir?
All of this aside, you're partly right; one's own passion and interest in a story is not sufficient grounds to include an article on Wikipedia. All of the above is not a determining factor in notability.
The problem with your argument is that this article is far more than one person's own passion or interest; I think that taking this to AfD would be extremely unwise in light of the broad international and national coverage that this owl received (and even some regional coverage from outside of the New York area). It would also result in a speedy keep per WP:CSK#6 if you were to nominate this right now (The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page. In such cases, please wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating. If the problem is urgent, consensus should be gained at WP:ERRORS to remove the link before nominating for deletion), so I reemphasize that I strongly advise against nominating this article for deletion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I ♥ this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)