Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native American Guardians Association


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. 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)

Native American Guardians Association

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

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 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)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:49, 1 September 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 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.


 * 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)
 * See comment below WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:19, 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The news stories are raw materials, almost all primary sources of NAGA's actual activity on particular occasions, not what they claim. The sources that remain in the article have some balance, also quoting other participants in the events. The SI article approaches being secondary, placing NAGA's activities in a larger context of Native support for the Redskins and finding it to have been mostly funded by Dan Snyder, and noting that one of NAGA's founding members and spokesperson is Snyder's favorite Pretendian, Mark Yancey.
 * Not placing the contribution of the Soros organization in the context of the NCAI's total funding is biased reporting. NCAI's list of supporters includes business such as Walmart, government agencies including the Department of Agriculture, and 37 Native American tribes, yet this TV report picks out the Open Society Foundations to make claims that the NCAI is a front for woke liberalism (DEI).
 * WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) )
 * 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 WP:HOAX to claim they are actually Native people, that Native people support mascots, and other untrue things. As far as I am aware, from investigations done by Indigenous researchers, they are well-known pretendians and hoaxers, funded by opponents of Indigenous rights, who routinely mislead the media to advance certain political agendas. Advancing these agendas is their paid profession. So, there are usually-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:
 * Delete the article under the principle of Deny Recognition. Or,
 * 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. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 00:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I am also very familiar with NAGA, having edited the Native mascot articles since 2012. Their tactics are the same as Dan Snyder and prior owners during decades of resisting change: "I found one Native American Redskins fan, so I get to keep the name no matter what Suzan Harjoe, Amanda Blackhorse, and the NCAI says". One of the Natives he found was Mark Yancey, a founding board member of NAGA who could not reliable say which tribe he was from. However, I do not say the NAGA members are all pretendians, but there are only about a dozen in the IRS documents, and no independent source for their claim of 5,000 due-paying members, but the majority are certainly non-native sports fans, as are the thousands signing the change.org petitions.
 * The racism represented by Native mascots is not a matter of individual opinions, but studies published in peer-reviewed journals and supported by the professional organizations representing the relevant academic disciplines. The current version of the NAGA article has indeed been edited down to a neutral reprentation (per WP:DUE) of NAGA as a fringe group with little credability or success at promoting its contrary viewpoint. This may be all they need, to be able to say there is a Wikipedia article on NAGA so it is noteworthy, but the woke editors are posting only lies and deleting the truth.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. -  CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. Scu ba (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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? - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.

Relisting comment: The relevant argument here is whether the article meets the GNG. I see a lot of discussion that skids past the sources and basically have two sets of assertions. What would help would be either a source analysis or a conversation about specific sources to enable us to get to a clear consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Reply - More specific than GNG to the notability of organizations (WP:ORG), the Primary criteria is: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This criteria is stricter than GNG specifically to prevent WP being used for advertising and promotion. If these criteria were applied to the NAGA article, all content would disappear, and almost has compared to when originally created. There is at most one secondary source (Sport Illustrated) which mentions NAGA but is about the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation, and supports the description of NAGA as an Astroturfing organization.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, they have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, aka local news reports, that are independent of NAGA and instead focusing on the Redskins and other Indian mascot name controversies. Scu ba (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * Keep based on wide coverage noted above, but should have a "criticisms" or similar type of section. There is definitely material out there which can be used to populate such a critique that would ensure the article is balanced and encyclopedic rather than being used merely for publicity. The subject is engaged in activities which the general public should know about with available references to support, and that makes it encyclopedic. - Indefensible (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: Others have been editing the article during this discussion, and I have been doing cleanup, usually rewording based upon the cited sources or removing content that the sources do not mention at all. As noted, the article is moving towards being negative regarding NAGA, but this is due to accuracy, not bias. The organization is mentioned in many primary news reports in sources of varying reliablity, but the few that go beyond stating facts regarding an event either include statements by local Indigenous tribal representatives that NAGA does not represent them or actually represents white supporters of Native mascots that fund the organization. One source notes that NAGA has not received sufficient donations in a year to require submitting a full report to the IRS detailing their activities and spending.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The latest cleanup has been the reversion of an edit deleting SI cited content. WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The SI content was again deleted without explanation. Should I bother to replace it since the entire artical should be gone? WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The deletion was self-reverted. WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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)


 * 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). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I appologize for the way I stated the issue. I do not seperate due weight based upon sourcing and my understanding of those sources as a subject area expert. The fact us there is really nothing to say about NAGA anywhere because there are no sources that mention the organization that come near to the academic and professional sources I have cited in the main articles on Native mascots. Most pointedly there is no secondary source to establish that the organization even exists as supporters claim.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course they exist, there is a verifiable EIN. - Indefensible (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Exist as they claim. From the evidence in public sources, NAGA is less than a dozen individuals with a website, a PO box and a registration as a charity which has rarely collected significant donations. They claim to represent a "silent majority" of Native Americans nationwide who are honored by Native mascots, but usually fail because there are members of local tribes advocating for their removal. WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a little different than "even exists as supporters claim," but even so it does not really matter. Wikipedia can still have neutral coverage of a problematic subject like a hoax or fraud, that is why I recommended previously to include a "Criticisms" section. - Indefensible (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is currently little more than a list of failures and criticisms, which is all that can be established based upon the sources. This discussion is about whether the paucity of sources warrants deletion.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.