Talk:Gladys (owl)

Proposal to delete page
First, The proposed deletion has the appearance of being a retaliatory action by Moriwen for calling them out for adding a   tag to the page without an explanation on why they considered it non-notable in the first place. I deleted the tag and communicated the issue at hand in the summary. It would have been good if they had done the same and communicated their reasonings on the talk page or at least the summary.

Why is the same editor now tagging/nominating it for deletion when they at first tagged it for what they thought was possible non-notability and a request to improve the article? Why not just retag it and post on the talk page their rational for the non-notable tag instead of changing the tag to  ?

Second, as far as Notability the subject has coverage from reliable secondary sources. There is sustained coverage as it was tracked from its escape to its death. The story is short. It may even qualify as a stub. It may not even be very well written. I will admit to my shortcomings as a writer. However, those are not reasons to delete it.

However from the response what I am concerned about is urban bias - bigotry against article topics in non-urban areas particularly those areas in the US that are outside of both the coasts. Please compare the Gladys article to the Wikipedia page to Flaco (owl). It is also a story about an owl that escaped from a zoo. No one tagged it for deletion from its first version on February 14, 2023, when it was just coverage for a single event, until February 24, 2024, when I proposed it be deleted for lack of Notability. However, my concern for non-notability was not due to a dumbing down of a Wikipedia article for lack of sources but rather due to the dumbing up of a Wikipedia article because of a wealth of sources on a topic that anywhere else in flyover country would be deleted. However, I was schooled in Wikipedia policies that support and encourage institutionalized urban bias as well as being confronted with urban fragility. Some editors got pretty indignant when confronted with their urban privilege.

New York is an echo chamber of news with 12 percent of all U.S. newsroom employees—reporters, editors, and photographers, living in New York City. The issue isn't just the over-coverage of New York City and the "dumbing up" of Wikipedia articles from there, but it is the attacks and hostility from Wikipedia editors on articles from smaller cities, towns, and rural areas such as this article. I ran multiple Wikpedia Edit-n-thons in smaller cities, and towns in Minnesota in an attempt to improve articles on their towns and history. I was surprised by what the editors have been running into since that time. Articles or entries challenged/deleted for their community newspapers being too local or their community being "just a suburb" or "a small town." Unfortunately, Wikipedia has yet to even acknowledge its problems with urban bias as it has with gender and racial bias. Myotus (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)