Talk:Lion Guard

Scranton Times article

Over the past year, I've asked the Scranton Times twice if they ran a story on this group in the summer of 2016, which they stated that they did. While I do not have a copy of the article, I was e-mailed key points of it which pretty much match the material in this article. I've seen that a "dubious" tag keeps getting added to this material and removal of the tag has been reverted twice. I'm hoping we can resolve this situation since there was an article which did speak about the fascist undertones of the lion image and how this group was using it in the same manner. Thoughts? -O.R.^Comms 14:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The most glaring problem here is that our article claims that Lion Guard was condemned by "most mainstream political activist groups." The word "most" seems unlikely to be verifiable. There are thousands of mainstream political activist groups; did the Scranton Times source really say that more half of them condemned Lion Guard? I highly doubt it. On top of that, we have claims that the NAACP and CAIR condemned Lion Guard for using fascist imagery. Those are extraordinary claims, and I could find nothing to corroborate them.

I think the appropriate way to resolve this issue would be to find the source and include the relevant quote. I find it very odd that the source doesn't appear in the Scranton Times-Tribune's June 13, 2016 archive. Has the Times-Tribune confirmed the date, author, and headline? If so, my suggestion would be to use the resources listed in WP:Find your source, including asking for help at WP:RD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I think its important to somehow stress in their decline that no one supported them. The source from Scranton Times appears to be faulty. We should remove it while still keeping the general gist of the statement that this was a fringe group which mainstream activists avoided. -O.R.^Comms 15:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you propose some edits? Remember that all content must be verifiable, i.e. expressly supported by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Far right

OberRanks, regarding this edit summary -- I'd be glad to support including the "far right" descriptor, if I can find it in a reliable source. What is this source you're referring to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe its referenced in one way or another in the sources already given. There was also a press release from the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office, North Carolina, dated March 12th 2016, which referred to the group as a "far right extremist organization". I agree, by the way, this article needs works and more sources. Its not at the top of my list but perhaps another enthusiastic editor will come in and do the research we need to turn this into a much better piece of work. -O.R.^Comms 13:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

OberRanks, please provide a link or citation here that supports the claim that the group is far right. You referred in your edit summary to a specific reference, so this should be very quick and easy for you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Take your pick [1] -O.R.^Comms 16:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

PoliticusUSA

I've started a discussion at WP:RSN#PoliticusUSA regarding whether this cited source is reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible COI Editing

I'm at the limit of my knowledge about articles on current events (I write very few of these). I asked on a noticeboard for others to chime in here since no one other than me has really contributed here. I'm okay if we take out unsourced or dubious material, but its going a bit too far accusing other editors of making up sources or removing obvious factual material like when the website went inactive (something easily verified). Also, now its my turn to ask a question. Why all the passion about aggressively removing material from this article? Do you have some involvement with them? If so, might need to consider WP:COI issues. I'm not saying that this is the case, only your editing pattern indicates someone with a determined mission to keep certain things out of this article. -O.R.^Comms 01:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

My "passion" is boosting Wikipedia's utility and reputation, and in aid of that goal I generally try to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

While that might be your passion, your editing pattern is indicative of someone with a vested interest in this group. The group is clearly a real, far right, organization, which existed in 2016 and did in fact do the many things that are in this article. The zeal at which you are pursuing keeping the information out of the article strikes strongly of WP:COI. On the flip side, challenging sources is okay, but removing legitimate sourced material, and then suggesting other editors are adding false sources, is not okay. Speaking of okay, this is really it. I am off this page. -O.R.^Comms 16:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Article sources

Transcribed from user talk page
Ok, if you're going to keep working on the article then I'd like you to explain with specificity how you are coming up with your sources. In particular, you repeatedly added the following source over my objection: McDermott, J. "Trump’s Brownshirts? Militia vows to 'protect' Donald Trump", Arizona Republic, 13 June 2016. Seriously, where did this come from, and did you ever actually read the source? Neither I nor the helpful people at WP:RX could find any evidence that it ever existed, despite searching the subscription services. One editor said it was probably made up. I'm trying to assume good faith here. Please help me out. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Most of the original sources for that article were forwarded to me by a contact at the Maryland Republic Party. That was also some time ago [2]. If the citations are questionable, they can and should be removed. -O.R.^Comms 00:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What did the Maryland Republican Party send you? A citation, the actual article, or something else? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

OberRanks, are you planning to answer this question? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question, I don't have a copy of the 2016 e-mail from the Maryland Republican Party. To my memory, it was just a list of online articles about the Lion Guard which i used to originally write the article. Also, please don't remove the notice tags from the Lion Guard article. They have been legitimately added in order to draw attention to the many issues with that article. You yourself have brought up some of the issues, mainly that it needs better sourcing. -O.R.^Comms 18:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

OberRanks, please explain how you added content based on a list of articles that don't exist (and therefore there was no way for you to read). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Several of the links to those source articles are on-line still and listed in the article reference section. I think the ones you found which were questionable were removed, which is as it should be, and were references to paper articles to which I had used a provided summary. Can I suggest something? Lets move away from these sources added over a year ago which were found to be problematic and move forward with the article. The questionable sources have all been removed and now the article now needs better secondary sources and also needs more editors involved. I myself have no further source material to offer on this group, so we need others to chime in. -O.R.^Comms 20:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It certainly looks like someone took this blog post, which has a similar title and similar content, and fudged the citation to make it look like it came from a reputable newspaper. Perhaps you can explain what I'm getting wrong here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of posts of that nature around the Internet, mostly because nothing in hardcopy has been published about this and other similar groups. I imagine when Trump leaves offices, and people start publishing material about his campaigns and the groups that followed him, there will be more to go on. -00:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No, there are no other pages on the web of that nature. Just that blog post, which cites an RT.com article. The RT.com article's title isn't similar to the citation you added, like the blog post's title is. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I found plenty of a similar nature using various search phrases on the Internet [3] -O.R.^Comms 15:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Tags added

I added three tags to get higher visibility on the article, especially due to its lack of citations, questions about the sourcing, and also the conversational nature of the group and a tendency towards breaking WP:NPOV. I don't plan to edit the article any more myself, but it needs more editors to get involved as its only been edited thus far by two people. -O.R.^Comms 18:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

These tags seem inappropriate to me. The content lacking sources has already been tagged at the inline level; the next step to address the problem would be to remove the unverifiable content. The accuracy and bias tags are not appropriate unless you or another editor identifies how our article doesn't conform to the reliable sources and/or how its language is non-neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Given that you're removing non-controversial items, such as the group's website being run by Domains by Proxy, and removing an undisputed reference that the Secret Service stated there were no gun carrying groups at the RNC (something widely reported and easily verifiable by the SS's own report - which was also removed as a source) it appears that you are simply trying to remove every source of the article under the statement "failed verification" for whatever reason. The tags in my view are thus extremely appropriate, as we appear to have a single user who is gutting the article and removing every statement that portrays this group in any sort of negative light. The reason why I have not attempted to revert these changes are because 1) there has already been an attempt at edit warring 2) the massive gutting of the article is suspected as possibly paid or COI editing (that's been advised to me by off-Wiki sources and I believe them) and 3) There is evidence of an almost war path mentality here, accompanied by statements which violate WP:AGF, as well as threats to take matters to administrator noticeboards when questions are not answered quickly and to one's liking. I won't revert a tag removal, but I would hope others might (I've spread the word to noticeboards and I hope others will come to contribute here). I've done about all I intend to at this point as my attempt was to draw notice to this article so that others would come and help fix it. Off the watchlist once again. -O.R.^Comms 03:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This comment has little to nothing to do with the tags you added. No explanation of how the content does not reflect the reliable sources. Can you identify any content I deleted--even a single word--that was verifiable and therefore should not have deleted? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, an uninvolved editor should make the eventual decision when and if to remove the tags. By the edit history of the article, you have been heavily involved with removing nearly all of the material, some legitimately but also some I think out of anger even restoring previous versions with syntax and grammar errors. [4]. Regardless of who removes the tags, it should not be either you or I. -O.R.^Comms 14:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: Can you identify any content I deleted--even a single word--that was verifiable and therefore should not have deleted? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This whole article is obviously a target of paid editing. I met some members of this group up in Pennsylvania and they are a racist right wing bunch of jerks. Why thus Dr. F-man wants to keep that out of the article is obvious. He's either a member or was one or is connected to them. Just look at the articles this dude edits and it's clear there is an agenda. -2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:67 (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

No, not a member, never a member, never connected to them in any way whatsoever. Tell me, my new friend from Baltimore, what brings you to this article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Tags Added):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Lion Guard and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Greetings OberRanks and DrFleischman, I saw your request for a third opinion, and I would like to try to help if I can. I've read through the discussions on the talk page here, and through the recent page history. It is my understanding that the third opinion you are looking for is whether or not the removal of content by DrFleischman appears to be justified. I decided to go through each of the major removals and give you my reasoning for agreeing or not; I hope this isn't too lengthy, but I wanted to be as thorough as possible in my answers. If I have made any mistakes in characterization, I apologize in advance, as I am coming into this with no background other than this conversation and my research on the topic as a result of this 3OR (I had not heard of Lion Guard before this). Before I go through each case, though, I would say that I understand the frustration on both sides. It appears to me that we have two editors that ultimately want a good article, but have different ideas as to what that entails. On the one hand, it appears that we have OberRanks who wants to ensure that Wikipedia represent as much of "the truth" as possible, and DrFleischman who wants to ensure that whatever "truth" that Wikipedia presents is backed up by reliable sources. I totally get both viewpoints, but for better or for worse, DrFleischman is (in general) pursuing the course that we as Wikipedia editors must follow as closely as possible. With the exception of self-evident statements ("the sky is blue"), if we can't find reliable sources, we really can't use it, regardless of what we "know to be true". That doesn't mean we can't look hard for sources, and it also doesn't mean we can't leave something tagged as needing sources for an extended period of time if we think there is a chance that someone could find them. Remember that there is no WP:DEADLINE for this stuff. So here are what I can find to be the major recent removals of material from the article. I've tried to do some of my own research as well. You are welcome to disagree with any of my opinions; they are provided here for the two of you to use or ignore at your discretion. [5]—agree, the listed reference does not identify Mesa as the headquarters, and I could not find another reference online to confirm. [6]—rather than simply deleting, this could have been sourced with this and the website itself (post of March 17, 2016) for the claims; “agitators” is not mentioned, but it could have been replaced with “plotters” or “conspirators”; and I don’t see any claims of actually working with the Maricopa County Sheriff (except for Wikipedia mirrors), just a notice on the website to contact them or the Secret Service, so that part could be removed. [7]—agree, website does not mention the New Hampshire rally, and therefore any claim of the post being “in response” would be WP:OR without a reference explicitly linking the two events. [8]—Certainly it is verifiable that there have been no new posts to the website since July 15, 2016, no activity on the “official” Twitter account as of March 12, 2016, and no posts to the “official” Facebook page since July 14, 2016. That information can’t be used to infer the status of the group itself; that would be WP:OR. But, they can be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. The references should be the actual (WP:PRIMARY) sites, however. The reference actually provided (iplogger.org) didn’t work, and I doubt would have been helpful in any event. [9]—agreed, either use it as an actual reference or don’t include it. [10]—I personally disagree with the removal of this, at least at the time it was removed. A source was given, though it was unable to be verified. Tagging it was appropriate; removing it a mere 12 hours later is a bit premature, in my opinion; I do appreciate that an attempt was made to go the RX route and were told that no one could find it, but the suggestion was made to start a conversation about it, which didn’t happen until 6 days later. The RX came to the conclusion that it should probably be removed, but not until a further 6 days had elapsed. [11]—Unfortunately there wasn’t much of a discussion at RSN about this, as it was just the two of you stating your respective points of view. It was tagged as an unreliable source here, and then removed just 18 hours later. There are no other mentions of PoliticusUSA on RSN that I can find, though searching Wikipedia for it has located a few instances where others have questioned its reliability. For what it’s worth, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politicususa/ claims that while the site is biased pretty strongly to the left, they were unable to find any instances of failed fact checks. It also appears to validate that they publish at least some Reuters content. I couldn’t find much else online to either confirm or refute either claim. I would personally think that the website could be used for uncontroversial fact reporting at the very least, and possibly (sparingly) as representative of a strongly liberal bias viewpoint. [12]—This whole paragraph would definitely need to be fully sourced in order for it to not be WP:OR. Although it doesn’t explicitly draw conclusions regarding the anonymous webmaster, the information is presented in such a way to suggest to the reader that this at least partially supports the theory of a lack of central leadership. Claiming anything about the substance of the website posts would also be WP:OR without citing a reference that had already come to this conclusion. Without this independent analysis, I don’t see the value of the Domains by Proxy sentence. [13]—this could have easily been properly sourced from the website itself (blog post on June 30, 2016). That being said, the article certainly does not need to chronicle every blog post or even every rally. If there isn’t anything else significant to say about the event, then it’s probably just as well to take it out. [14]—same removal as #4. [15]—I was able to find this (questionable reliability) and this (better reliability) for sources, but I could not corroborate a press release from the county’s website, for either the specified date or the specified topic on any date, which would leave quite a bit of this still unsourced. [16]—same removal as #8. [17]—this one seems important enough to have done some additional resource verification rather than removing it; maybe an attempt was made, but unfortunately those results weren’t shared to my knowledge. Obviously the official website has this info (but is a primary source). I was able to find this, this (depending on if thepoliticus is reliable or not), this (again, unknown as to its reliability; it refers to a thepoliticus article). None of these are really sufficient for the entirety of the passage, but perhaps some of it could have been salvaged. The tag was left on for several months, though, so perhaps a good faith attempt to find sources was made. This should be a very non-controversial point which was why it was confusing when it was removed. Both the Secret Service and the RNC stated no organized groups with guns were permitted into the convention. The Lion Guard statement on their website to attend was therefore not successful (see post further about that, something else interesting about this group). -O.R.Comms 15:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Controversial or not, verification is still required. Cthomas3 says this information is on the group's website, but I can't find anything referring to "insurrection" there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC) [18]—agree, none of the sources I have found explicitly state that the group has been officially disbanded, or comment specifically on its ideology or position on the political spectrum. [19]— also agree, no mention of leadership has been made in any source that I can find, so claiming “decentralized” would be OR on Wikipedia's part. I apologize again for the wall of text, but I hope this helps. If I can be of any further assistance, I am now following this page, so feel free to respond here or on my talk page. CThomas3 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

WOW! That's the most thorough, thoughtful 3O I've ever read by a long shot. Thank you so much Cthomas3. I will make adjustments accordingly. The only thing I take issue with is your assessment of PoliticusUSA. I've found no evidence whatsoever that the site has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and in the absence of such evidence it should not be used, even for non-controversial statements. That being said, this is largely a moot issue since I didn't delete the content it was supporting. Also, I'd just like to note that yes, I did independently attempt to verify everything before deleting it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! And I do hope that it helped. Other than the one site I listed, I wasn't able to find any evidence of PoliticusUSA's reliability either way. So I do agree that it would be probably best to avoid using it. CThomas³ (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

North Carolina uniform drive

OberRanks, as you surely know by now, one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is verifiability, which doesn't just mean that something is true, but that readers can verify the content via reliable sources. However I cannot find two of the sources you recently added due to insufficient information:

• www.inspectlet.com, "Record Session ip 96.10.36.220 - Mar-Apr2016" (Retrieved 13Aug17)
• Sheriff's Department Press Release, Cumberland County Government Record, Issue 4, Vol 23, Pgs 23-57 (16 Mar 2016)

No offense but do these actually exist? I have my doubts. Please provide links. These involve an alleged "press release" by a government agency. We are in the 21st Century in which no one issues a "press release" without posting it online. I also reviewed the blog coverage of this subject matter and no one is referring to such a source. I also don't know what "inspectlet.com" is, but sounds like something online, so please provide a complete link. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course they exist. Cumberland County Sheriff's Department is in North Carolina, they have an address for press inquiries which is where the release came from. The other one is a web tracking service [20] which subscribers can obtain traffic data on former and current webpages. The information from those sources I obtained from the Maryland Republican Party which has done a fair amount of research on this group. -O.R.^Comms 17:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What does traffic data have to do with the content you added? And the paragraph refers repeatedly to a press release. Please provide a link, or this content must be removed. An address for press inquiries isn't the same thing as a press release. We require published sources. Not unpublished data provided privately to you by a political party. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's a different way to answer my question. What specific steps would a reader take the verify the content you added? Would they have to go to inspectlet.com and enter certain information? If so, what information? Would they have to contact the Maryland Republican Party? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The vast majority of my knowledge on this topic came from the Maryland Republican Party. One of the problems here is that this is such a recent topic and I don't have that much experience writing articles of this nature. I asked on a noticeboard for others to join in. Meanwhile, I'm taking this off the watch list for awhile. If you want to gut it and take out information it can be readded in a year or so when more published material comes out about this group. I'm also sure after Trump's term is up, a plethora of material about these radical right groups will start appearing in publications. For now, "I leave this in the hands of younger men". -O.R.^Comms 01:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Press Release

I don't expect much right now from this article, as I think its been swamped down by COI editing, but here at least is the press release which caused such a stir. This is from an e-mail from the Cumberland County government and was apparently copied from the original release back in 2016 which was e-mailed to various agencies, reporters, and interested parities. No, its not on-line. Cumberland County is a small North Carolina community and doesn't maintain digital records of that nature, at least as far as I can tell.[21]

"A Twitter group called “The Lion’s Guard” has called on supporters of the GOP front-runner to join a make-shift militia.
"Do you want to provide security protection to innocent people who are subject to harassment and assault by Far-left agitators?” Lion’s Guard asked in a call to action.
“If so, you are welcome to join. That’s the mission — to protect innocents who can’t hire their own security guards.”
Lion’s Guard said that their members would be unarmed, “but willing to forcefully protect people if need be.”
The account reportedly has over 500 followers, and members were asking for “uniform suggestions.”

-O.R.^Comms 14:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I have my doubts whether Cumberland County in fact issued any such press release, as they do in fact keep an archive of such press releases and I couldn't find this one there. That being said, this is essentially beside the point, (1) unpublished e-mails are not reliable sources, and (2) the content was clearly lifted from this Rawstory article, which we already cite. I believe the Rawstory article is reliable, which makes this a moot issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I was able to locate the original e-mail from last year, it came from the address pao@ccsonc.org with a header that this was the public affairs department of the sheriff's department. Although, as you observed, I wonder if they just copied information previously posted or published about the group and included it in a general e-mail. This was about the time they had the trouble there with the person hitting someone at the Trump rally, so the messages out of the police were probably concerning general fears and problems of which the Lion Guard was one of several. -O.R.^Comms 15:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This is all besides the point, but I'm really quite skeptical of all of this. It doesn't look like there was any such press release, or a "stir" that was caused it. The Cumberland County Sheriff's Office has no such public affairs office. They do have a Public Information Officer, Sean Swaine, but his page does not say anything about this. Maybe the e-mail you received was spoofed. And as we've been over, some of the stuff you say was in this e-mail appears to be made up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw the exact same press release. It was a warning that this group might cause problems at Trump rallies in North Carolina and there was some information about the group wanting to use uniforms at political functions. As it turns out, this "group" never really existed and it was all an online fantasy. -24.106.126.148 (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please let it go. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible merge?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The result of this merge discussion was No Consensus.
There is some materiel coming to light, albeit second hand and through just on-line conversations, that this entire group might have been just a few people or even a single man. The website and Twitter account were run by an individual who has since been identified (I don't want to post the name here until I confirm it) and it looks like the Lion Guard was simply shut down after someone threatened the domain webmaster and he took down both the webpage and the twitter feed. Here is the "famous" twitter post where the group was apparently shut down [22] and all clues are gradually pointing to it being run by a single person, although might have been connected to Bikers of Trump (probably was). In any event, if this is just a group of a single person and his local friends, there will never be much more about this. Might want to merge if nothing else can be found? -O.R.^Comms 15:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sidebar

Do not post anyone's name here. I don't care if you've confirmed it or not, if you post someone's name here then I will take this straight to the administrators. This is known as doxing, and while I don't know if it's against policy to dox a non-editor, it is certainly a BLP violation and I will ask at ANI for the name to be oversighted at a minimum. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC) The only way such a name would be posted is if it was in a news article or other published source. I saw some speculation on a political newsgroup as to who it was, but that obviously wouldn't be valid. -O.R.Comms 16:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support (by nom) - merge with Protests against Donald Trump. Of all the research I've done into this group, the only time they were ever actually seen was at a whopping two protests, one in Arizona and the other North Carolina. There appears to be nothing further published or written about this group and, as mentioned above, the group itself appears to have been operated by a single person who has since completely shut the organization down. -O.R.^Comms 20:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Greetings, O.R.! I just happened to have this page still on my watchlist and thought I would pop by to respond here. My personal thought is that they have received enough media coverage to remain notable; you guys have found a sufficient number of sources to confirm that. The coverage appears be over a significant enough period to meet WP:SUSTAINED, and per WP:NOTTEMPORARY there doesn't need to be continued coverage (or even continued existence), so the as far as I am concerned the article is perfectly fine to stay where it is. I don't mean to say that I am necessarily opposed to a merge, but I don't see a compelling reason for one either. CThomas³ (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support: I work as a campaign organizer for the Ohio Democratic Party and fully support a merge or deletion of this article for several different reasons. First off- this was never a real political group. It was "founded" by a rather disturbed man in Florida and had a Twitter Page and website, but nothing else. The "members" of the Lion Guard were all Twitter followers. The group never had any real members, they never gathered for any functions or rallies, and they never were ever recognized by any organization or political party as an activist group. In short- they only existed on the web and then only barely until the man who created this group took down his pages following an online threat against his daughter. Second- there are some MAJOR problems here with article ownership, see WP:OWN. There have only ever been two editors who have contributed to this article in any sort of way, and it looks like half that time they spent fighting with each other. the first, OberRanks, edits pro-left and apparently wrote the article with bad or shaky sources. The other, Dr. Fleischman, edits pro-right and appears to support this group and their aims, supporting the conflict of interest view, see WP:COI. Third- this "group" will never be refounded and there will never be anything really significantly written about it. The group flat out just didn't exist, except in the mind of that man from Florida. I would say simply delete this, or at the very least merge what is left, which isn't that much. -24.106.126.148 (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please let it go. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Given the info above coming out of Ohio, the page should probably be redirected. I've heard very much the same thing, in that the group probably didn't exist anywhere other than cyberspace. This would explain the original problems with all the sources, i.e. they were based mostly on Internet articles, themselves not reliable, and also why the very few hard print sources never had photos of the group or other such verifiable information. As the original creator of the article, I admit the sources for this were very shaky and probably not valid. For that reason, the article can be redirected. I'll give a few weeks for comment, if there are no major objections, I'll redirect it at that time. -O.R.^Comms 17:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually if you do then I'll report you to the admins for socking. What part of "please let it go" do you not understand? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If you think any of that has occurred, you should report it in any event. I'd be interested in what evidence you have that sock puppetry has occurred on this article at all, since I've seen none. I also asked for other opinions of other editors from the WP:Politics project, perhaps they will be more open to discussing this matter. -O.R.^Comms 18:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Sure, then I will. And I oppose the merge, at this point purely because it isn't supported by consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment

Requesting comment on if this article should be deleted or merged. There is some materiel coming to light that this group might not have actually existed, but was confined to online activities only. 14:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OberRanks (talk • contribs)

Survey

• Comment: As originator of the RfC, the main concern here is this actually was never actually a real group, but instead a passing event on the Internet claiming to be a paramilitary formation. After the numerous discussions above about reliable sources, most of what has been written about this group has not stood up to scrutiny. They were never physically seen in public nor any events for this group organized. The only real proof of their existence is the one website, which is now shut down, and was operated by one man. At the least, this should be merged, if not in fact deleted. As the creator of the article originally, I think now this should be merged. -O.R.^Comms 15:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

OR, this discussion is long stale. Are you trying to start an RfC? If so I'd suggest starting a new discussion. You need to use the {{rfc}} template. Instructions are at WP:RFC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

A procedural note. Deletion discussions belong at AfD. Regarding a merge, merge into which article? When you request a merge it's appropriate to add {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tags. I'd add them myself, but I can't when the proposed merge target hasn't been identified. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

What DrFleischman said; plus, the procedure for proposing a merge is given at WP:MERGE. This really is not a RfC matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Could be, I have not yet used RfD for years. Main issue here is, try as we may, can't seem to get others to comment on this article or anyone else to make significant edits. -O.R.^Comms 17:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

If you use {{mergeto}}/{{mergefrom}}, or even just {{merge}}, the article will be categorised at Category:Articles to be merged from June 2018 and Category:All articles to be merged, and will also be bot-listed at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/June 2018 which will help to draw in comment from others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I did so, it looks like Protests_against_Donald_Trump#Security would be a good home for it. -O.R.^Comms 18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but there are still 2 procedural problems. First, there needs to be a {{mergefrom}} tag added at Protests against Donald Trump. I'd do that myself except for the second problem, which is that merge discussions are usually done on the target page. I'll let you decide if you want to move the RfC to Talk:Protests against Donald Trump or if you'd rather place a notice there directing people to come here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Redirect

Insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. Please also see User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise/OberRanks#Lion_Guard for additional issues with the page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't it just redirect to The Lion Guard? If my two-year-old's usage is any indication, plain "Lion Guard" without the "the" refers primarily to the show. Srnec (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)