Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native American Guardians Association

Native American Guardians Association

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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)

The primary reason for deletion is lack of notability per WP:ORG. As a result of a speedy deletion 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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 Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, not 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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• Delete This organization is less notable than they claim to be. Nor have they been transformational. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• Note RE: Breaking news - The astroturf is continuing to be rolled out, and reported by local news without sufficient independent investigation to qualify as reliable sources for any Wikipedia article. An example from Thursday 08/31 is a CBS TV affiliate (KDBC) in El Paso, Texas, operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group, posting a story with the headline "Soros-backed Native American group praises Commanders president's refusal to revert team name". The group referred to is the NCAI, and the unsubstantiated connection to George Soros is the beginning of a making a false equivalency between NCAI and NAGA, the former being a civil rights organization founded in 1944, representing the shared interests of many tribes; the latter a non-profit founded in 2017 that does not have any secondary source to substantiate any of their statements as being representative of more than the handful of Native Americans listed in public records.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  I still wonder what you classify as an "independent investigation". Because usually media companies with things such as editorial boards tend to investigate the things they are talking about before releasing it to the world. Also what part of "The organization traces some of its funding back to George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, as well as other left-leaning contributors" is unsubstantiated, the NCAI lists the open society foundation in their list of backers on their own website. Scu ba (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • I see no original research or synthesis in the article’s current version
  • The article is well referenced by reliable secondary sources.
  • The Sports Illustrated article, while primarily written to spotlight NAGA’s presumed major funder, also covers NAGA in substantial depth.
  • Traditional local newspapers and media outlets in the United States are presumed reliable sources until proven otherwise.
  • I have never heard news reports by traditional local newspapers and media outlets in the United States described as “primary” before. They are secondary
  • We do not make a distinction between little news outlets and big outlets as to reliability unless proven otherwise. Instead we look at editorial oversight, independence and neutrality.
  • The article seems to have a slight POV against NAGA. That’s irrelevant to article retention. Cleanup ≠ deletion.
  • Whether this is some sort of Native American astroturfing group is irrelevant to article retention.
  • Whether NAGA are the good guys or the bad guys is irrelevant to article retention.
  • IRS form 990 returns are always primary sources. A possible exception might be any independently audited financial statements attached to the return.
  • Analysis of and reporting about Form 990 returns can be used as secondary sources.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)