Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native American Guardians Association

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus‎. It doesn't like we're going to get a definitive agreement here on what to do. The suggestion by Rhododendrites to merge might be a suitable compromise, but that can be worked out outside of the scope of an AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Guardians Association

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

Native American Guardians Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability, Neutrality, Original Research WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The primary reason for deletion is lack of notability per
WP:ORG. As a result of a s̵p̵e̵e̵d̵y̵ ̵d̵e̵l̵e̵t̵i̵o̵n̵ prod tag placed August 19, there has been a discussion on the article's talk page
.
Neutrality continues to be an issue, although much of the non-neutral language and content supported only by the organization's website have been removed.
The remaining content is original research due to
sythesis
, drawing conclusions from the organization being mentioned in primary sources, generally local news.
WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, North Dakota, and Virginia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Politics, and Education. Skynxnex (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still pondering this. There is a lot of coverage from a lot of geographic areas, including some regional newspapers, so it's not clearly all unreliable sources or ones that don't contribute to notability. I agree the article needs work to be more neutral and it seems like there's little coverage of the org other than at particular events... (As a minor note since I was somewhat unsure, WriterArtistDC nominated it for a
    WP:SPEEDY, see Special:Diff/1171091255; I mention it since a PROD was more appropriate for this article than CSD'ing it.) Skynxnex (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I spend 99% of my time creating content, so I did not know how to delete an article and chose the wrong process, but I hope that this is the correct one. WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against The organization has enough media coverage to warrant a stand alone article. the major problem was neutrality but as per the article's talk page that was resolved. there is no reason to delete the article. Scu ba (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Media coverage is the entire problem. Should an organization be deemed notable because its media campaign has had some success in being mentioned in primary sources? Is the creation of a WP article part of that campaign? There is no secondary source to establish that the organization has any independent support or recognition. Instead, several of the news sources quote other Native Americans as saying NAGA does not represent them. WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Should an organization be deemed notable because it's actions were notable enough to be mentioned by the news? Yes. that is the definition of notability. Scu ba (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is a complex concept with no definitive characteristic. Being mentioned in the news is the lowest level. With regard to news reports, Wikipedia is not a newspaper states "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...". That there is an ongoing controversy regarding the removal of Native mascots is notable, but NAGA's role in that controversy has not been established. The closest any citation comes to being a secondary source is a Sports Illustrated article that casts doubt on NAGA's authenticity as an organization.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This organization is less notable than they claim to be. Nor have they been transformational. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete - appears to be a failed astroturf organisation and the cites are to their PR work. The coverage is scattershot with very little depth. Possibly there's an article here, but it would be considerably shorter and give the org much less credit - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference between primary and secondary sources is not the type of organization, journalistic or academic, but the level of analysis they do. A primary academic source is one that reports the result of a single study, a seconday source is a literature review which reports and synthesises the results of many similar studies, and a tertiery source makes an even broader analysis and places conclusions in an historical context. A primary journalistic source reports on a single event such as the vote by a local school board to change their mascot, a secondary source reports on the mascot controversy statewide or nationwide based upon an analysis of many such events, often with reference to independent experts. I have never seen NAGA mentioned in any secondary reports, although the SI article comes close.
  • When I first encountered the NAGA article it was mainly based upon references to the organization's own website and the creator's
    synthesis
    of many primary news reports. The current content of the article is the result of removing this original research as much as possible. I used the IRS filings as an independent primary source for the infobox, much better that the prior information being from NAGA's own website. If the current content is negative towards NAGA, it is because the reporting that remains includes comments by Native Americans that NAGA does not represent them. The proposed deletion of the article is based upon notabilty, not POV. Notability is established by reference to secondary sources, not the media's uncritical parroting of NAGA's press releases.
  • The bias in the Texas television report cited above is clear in their wording of the headline, which implies that NCAI is controlled by Soros. The NCAI is primarily funded by dues paid by it members. If it also receives donations from other sources, characterization of those donors as "left-leaning" belongs on an editorial page, not in a news report.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • you might want to brush up on what a primary source is, the statements that NAGA makes can be classified as primary sources, and the media reporting on these statements as secondary sources.
  • as such, due to the substantial media coverage, it classifies for notability.
  • the CBS report called them "Soros-backed", the NCAI is backed, financially, by the open society foundation which is run by Soros. Not sure how more black and white it could be.
Scu ba (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are misreading the definition you linked to and the WP guildline:
    • What NAGA has to say about itself is self-promotion, not independently published, thus no source at all.
  • WP:Primary
    "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
  • The LOC definition is somewhat different than WP, but similar to historical research: primary sources are "original documents and objects that were created at the time under study". Yet there is the same caveat: "secondary sources, [are] accounts that retell, analyze, or interpret events". On WP, not having secondary sources for the interpretation of "raw materials" found in primary sources is original research. Historians and journalists may do original research, but not wikipedians.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And again, are their statements which are released by local media affiliates not reputably published due to the existence of the news affiliate's fact checking and editorial boards per
WP:NEWSORG. Scu ba (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't like the reporting or the way it was reported doesn't make it incorrect. Scu ba (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Native American mascots article, or selectively merge there. That seems to be really all they do, so outside of that, nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main articles on Native mascots are GA. There is nothing worth merging. I fail to see the point of redirecting a title to an article that does not mention NAGA. WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete (After going through the history, and especially after looking at the first version of this article and the talk page, the problem is not with SPAs and IPs. Changing from neutral to Delete. -
    ☼ 22:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) )[reply
    ]
With astroturfing groups like this we always face a dilemma. I am familiar with this group. There is no way to put this gently or neutrally. They perpetrate hoaxes, and if they have a WP article, they will create accounts, or do IP edits, to attempt to abuse the 'pedia to perpatrate a
reliable
sources that contain misinformation about this group, calling them legitimate when they are not, because they succeeded in fooling journalists. This puts us, as Wikipedians, in a difficult place. We can either:
  1. Delete the article under the principle of Deny Recognition. Or,
  2. Keep the article only if there are sufficient sources to tell the truth about them, in a neutral, encyclopedic voice.
My opinion is that if we don't have enough sources to do #2, the best way to avoid being used for a hoax is to do #1 and delete. -
☼ 00:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
If IP editors make incorrect edits we can
WP:ECP the article, it doesn't make sense deleting the entire article on the premise that IP editors might one day make incorrect edits. Scu ba (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course we can protect the article if we keep it. And we would most likely have to. Just looking down both roads, whichever way we turn at this crossroads. I'm not so much saying it's a reason to delete, but some have considered the hassles a reason in the past. I tend to lean towards keeping something to tell the truth about them, but I haven't decided what's best here. Best wishes. -
☼ 22:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. Scu ba (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scu ba... I'm looking at your creation of this article. This opening you wrote is really not neutral, but seems like you believe their false claims and are promoting them. This is concerning. Do you have any connection to this group? -
☼ 22:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I just wrote what was in the articles. I didn't put my own POV into it, but the affiliated CBS ABC stations might've had their own POV to increase clicks. Scu ba (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my earlier comments above(04:04 3 September) and those of others. This organization is notable.
A question that's been raised is: how's it right/righteous/appropriate/whatever to keep an article for an outfit like this. My policy-based answers:
  • Wikipedia is not censored
  • Wikipedia is neutral
  • Our article deletion policy doesn't have a provision for deleting on this basis.
As a practical matter, I don't think this article does the Native American Guardians Association any favors. It's not NPOV now but even edited to neutrality, it's still going to report awkward things. I think the organisation's foes would want an article here. It's the first place journalists and others will look when NAGA comes to their town. If I were NAGA, I would want this article deleted if I couldn't control it. It's too late for them to control it -- it's now on too many watchlists.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz Humbug! 07:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Addendum to reply above -
    WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." With the exception of the SI article, all of the citations that have ever been in the NAGA article are primary - local news reporting of an event, in which NAGA was mentioned in passing, not "significant coverage".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not having been part of an AfD before, I don't know what a clearer concensus would look like. Frankly, the topic is not worthy, so I am not surprised there are few participants here. There are currently 4 for deletion (including one "leaning"), all offering comments specific to this article regarding lack of Notability, RS's and NPOV. There are three "keep", one by the originator of the article, who seem to offer inclusionist arguements that would make anything is the media worthy of a WP article, opening up a flood of astroturfing.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tough one. I'm sympathetic to the argument that effective astroturfing leads to coverage in minor/local publications (not to mention publications with a documented ideology compatible with the subject's). Fun fact: several of the sources cited quote this guy without qualification (or perhaps prior to the WaPo article). I'm also sympathetic to the argument that there are several sources which go into some depth about this group's activities. There's a good case for retaining some information about it, prioritizing the highest quality sources, somewhere. Does it merit a stand-alone article? It's borderline. What about a selective merge to Native American mascot controversy (again, preserving only the best sources). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have mentioned above that I am the major contributor to the mascot controversy article, which has been GA for years, and no editor found NAGA (or Mark Yancey, the "guy" alluded to) worthy of mention. The viewpoint that mascots are racist, not "honoring" is based upon peer-reviewed journal articles and books by professors in several disciplines, not the opinion of a fringe group.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does The viewpoint that mascots are racist, not "honoring" have to do with anything? The question is whether, if you take all the reliable sources about the subject of the mascot controversy, there are sufficient sources about NAGA that they constitute due
    WP:WEIGHT to include there. That's the nature of NPOV. Nobody says we have to parrot their talking points. If there's consensus there that it would not be due weight to include, that's fine, but it's based on sourcing. The merge could simply be something like "Organizations like the Native American Guardians Association (NAGA) mobilized local and national activists claiming to be Native Americans to defend use of Native American mascots. These organizations are not part of any tribe or other Native American cultural group, and multiple people involved have faced allegations that they are not Native American". Now, that may not wind up being an NPOV summary (I'd need to look closer at the sourcing), but it's an example of the kind of merge I mean. Doesn't the existence of these astroturfing groups (caveat: I can't find a good source that explicitly calls them that, so don't use that word) seem worth at least briefly mentioning as a frequently publicized player in the larger controversy? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:42, 19 September 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Native_American_Guardians_Association&oldid=1177385117"