City-recognized tribes in the United States: A Google search of the term generates only three websites: Wikipedia itself and two Filipino websites.  Editor has been promoting their organization the "Una Nation" throughout Wikipedia.  WP:OR , WP:PROMO , WP:Notability Yuchitown ( talk ) 15:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Yuchitown [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Oregon .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey if you want to silence actual history, then DELETE LivingWellat50 ( talk ) 15:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, please calm down.  Second, there are absolute zero sources for "City-recognized tribes in the United States."  Please read about wp:original research .  Yuchitown ( talk ) 16:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Yuchitown [ reply ] ZERO SOURCES?  https://laserfiche.springfield-or.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx? id=1274041&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Springfield-Laserfiche&cr=1 That is directly from the City of Springfield, Oregon when the "recognized the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods".  LivingWellat50 ( talk ) 21:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the city of Springfield did issue a proclamation recognizing the Una Nation, but like Nate said, it has no force of law, and "city recognized tribes" are not an established concept.  Not only that, but a city document is not a secondary source.  Wikipedia, although we can use primary sources, is meant to be a reflection of academic sources.  (See the General Notability Guidelines )  Until there are more reliable, preferably secondary, sources, which talk about city-recognized tribes, there is no reason to have a list of them on Wikipedia, ESPECIALLY when there is literally only one example of such a recognition.  PersusjCP ( talk ) 22:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So official government websites are not able to be used as sources.  Got it.  Yes, sir.  Only what you say, sir.  Is that better, sir?  Or would you prefer us kiss your feet, sir?  Let's silence the only example.  Good thinking!  You're a pro!  LivingWellat50 ( talk ) 22:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First off, I am not a sir, and no need to be so rude.  I am just explaining the guidelines of Wikipedia.  I didn't set them and I have had my share of grievances against what is allowed and what isn't.  There is simply not coverage of the topic in reliable sources.  PersusjCP ( talk ) 22:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And there are no tribes (plural), one tribe (singular) that fit this description.  Could perhaps write an article about the tribe if you can gather enough sourcing for it.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft: Una Nation LivingWellat50 ( talk ) 03:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Never heard of city-recognized tribes and definitely seems like WP:PROMO.  Not only that, but the article's source for the only tribe being "city-recognized" had zero mention of the words "city-recognized" so it is definitely WP:SYNTH .  PersusjCP ( talk ) 19:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Cities can certainly issues proclamations/give keys to the city for this type of recognition, and that's what exactly happened here if you read the city council transcript ( Una Nation of Mixed Bloods Proclamation ); it has no force of law and did not establish that concept.  Nate • ( chatter ) 20:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It RECOGNIZED THE TRIBE.  Period.  The city of Springfield, Oregon recognized the Una.  They are the ONLY city-recognized tribe in the US.  It's that simple.  LivingWellat50 ( talk ) 21:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nowhere did the proclamation create the concept of "city-recognized tribes."  That's not an established term or concept used in tribal law.  You are welcome to write about that recognition in the article for the Una Nation, but it does not warrant a separate article.  PersusjCP ( talk ) 22:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  This article SHOULD be deleted.  Until further tribes are city recognized.  LivingWellat50 ( talk ) 11:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The transcipt says "recognized the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods".  How can you misconstrue THAT?  LivingWellat50 ( talk ) 21:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is sourced in the Draft: Una Nation .  But that article keeps getting silenced.  Not sure why, other than generational systematic racism engrained in US society.  The US ignores the mixed-bloods like they do not exist.  Do not make the same mistake.  LivingWellat50 ( talk ) 22:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Until other tribes are city recognized • contribs ) 21:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : "One city passes a resolution and it gets you a wikipedia article", isn't notable.  Sure the tribe exists, but the term is not used by academia or any other form of government, so I don't see notability here.  We could perhaps write an article about the tribe, or add a line to the article about the city.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  I have already created an article about them, Draft: Una Nation .  LivingWellat50 ( talk ) 02:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That draft also has mostly non-reliable sources talking about them, very unlikely to get published in its current form.  You'll need books or newspapers talking about this group to get this into notability here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The single act of one city recognizing one tribe does not create the concept of "city-recognized tribes" to the level that such a neologism should be covered at Wikipedia.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!  ReadMe!!  18:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Not enough other than one entry.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 20:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete — Can be revisited if a movement of U.S. cities recongnizing tribes develops and receives WP:SIGCOV , especially if such a movement involves force of law and not just proclamations.  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.

Discussion outcome: delete