Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deanna Lynn Wulff


 * 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 delete. Apparent autobiography for a person who does not seem to achieved notability yet. RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Deanna Lynn Wulff

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

Inappropriate WP:Autobiography by User:Deanna wulff. Biographical notability not established; sources are about the proposal for a Range of Light National Monument rather than significant coverage about her specifically. The KQED source is a decent human interest article but the focus is still the proposal and Unite the Parks. Reywas92Talk 18:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. Reywas92Talk 18:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There's also a USA Today piece that came out in Sept 2022 but it's paywalled, I think with what's given, it's a weak keep. Oaktree b (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the USA Today article Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That article isn't biographical, just quoting her as an expert on the Sierra Nevada. The other references are biographical. 2601:645:4300:4E20:209E:F844:A698:1D36 (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It also wasn't originally referenced in this wikipedia article, so it's unclear why the user is commenting on it here. 2601:645:4300:4E20:209E:F844:A698:1D36 (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it as we're trying to find reliable sources to use. Oaktree b (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The archived link is here: . A really weak coverage: "Deanna Lynn Wulff, who's been hiking the park for more than 30 years, has stopped taking one of her favorite trails. The San Francisco resident says it's transformed." + a quote from her. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * KeepThere are at least 4 news stories, which are specific to this person and that's notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:4E20:F0F7:319D:CB55:FAB0 (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are the articles:
 * National Geographic
 * https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/inside-the-battle-to-save-a-sprawling-national-forest-in-california
 * Merced Sun Star
 * https://www.dropbox.com/home/Unite%20the%20Parks/Research/Media?select=Preserving+our+vision+of+the+land+in+between+_+Merced+Sun-Star.pdf
 * Fresno Bee
 * https://www.dropbox.com/s/myh13lgd8m7holy/Campaign%20underway%20to%20turn%20Sierra%20National%20Forest%20into%20national%20monument%20_%20The%20Fresno%20Bee.pdf?dl=0
 * NPR
 * https://www.dropbox.com/s/xpywovducoj0yrn/NPR%20Report%20-%20One%20Woman%27s%20Quest.pdf?dl=0 2601:645:4300:4E20:209E:F844:A698:1D36 (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing this is Ms. Wulff again, no one else would have these articles saved to dropbox and reply at User talk:Deanna wulff. Per WP:Autobiography, it's conflict of interest that you would write an article about yourself and I do not think it's appropriate to keep this. I think with these sources there could be a Range of Light National Monument article or alternatively coverage at Sierra National Forest, but not a biographical one here. I'm highly disturbed by the baseless accusation that fails WP:AGF that I'm a "political operative". I literally wrote List of national monuments of the United States, absolutely endorse your efforts to establish the monument, and would support an article or section that focuses on it, but I do not believe we should have a biography here, especially one that was written by the subject. Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself. Reywas92Talk 05:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems like the goal posts are changing. First, this is not a notable person, then it should categorized by the organization or the monument, and now again suspected autobiographical - mostly because the sources, even in the dropbox folder can readily be found and verified. This is why it seems like there is an agenda to delete. And suddenly, when the page has been live for 3 years. 2601:645:4300:4E20:209E:F844:A698:1D36 (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay my agenda is that people shouldn't be writing their own articles on Wikipedia, and that there should be significant coverage specifically about the subject to establish notability. No idea did what you're supposed to be getting at by "live for 3 years", most articles nominated for deletion have been around for years because it's not like I knew about this as soon as it was published! Reywas92Talk 14:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unite the Parks didn't exist when the NPR story was written, so it's not possible for the article to be about the organization, which was founded in 2017. 2601:645:4300:4E20:209E:F844:A698:1D36 (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It is becoming clear from the comments - which mostly don't refer to the content of the page - that this an effort to take down this person rather an actual discussion of the news articles and the difficulty of the work performed, which is the basis of those articles. Further, several authors have adjusted the page AND the original comment about the NPR story is inaccurate. Unite the Parks didn't exist until 4 years after the article was written, so it cannot be about that. If this targeting continues, this deletion page will be deleted as a violating wikipedia standards of conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:4E20:BCE9:A049:B82:9059 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This Biography is notable because of the subject's accomplishments, which are documented in the cited references. Regarding notability, the stature of the references carry significant weight in this regard because they themselves are records of note. For example, Wulff is interviewed by National Geographic (Reference 7, titled "Inside the Political Battle ..."), and in the interview they include significant human-interest content, including childhood photos of Wulff. Likewise, in the National Public Radio KQED interview (Reference 1, titled "One Woman's Quest to Unite the Parks"), half of the piece (by word count) is about Wulff and her life experiences and perspective. Finally, the most obvious argument for Wulff's notability is the existence of the Range of Light National Monument campaign at all. While many visitors are moved and inspired by our National Wildlands, it is only an extremely small percentage of those visitors who respond by dedicating a decade of their lives to a grass-roots-effort that they then manage to carry all the way to the U.S. Halls of Congress, as is documented by the cited references. For this reason alone, Wulff is note worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeWerne (talk • contribs) 06:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC) —  has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Reywas92Talk 14:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of activists who press issues with members of Congress, and that is not the basis for articles here. Reywas92Talk 14:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This account appears to have been created to vote on this AfD and to add to the article in question, which is suspicious. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I question whether this autobiography should be based on the person or the organization. It seems as though the organization she started is notable, and I think it would make sense to restructure the article based on the organization (and move it) and not based on the person. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Please remember to assume good faith and to not make baseless accusations against others. It's a reach to believe this is some hit job against the article's subject. It's very clear that this issue is about notability. We understand that you believe the subject to be notable, but do not WP:BLUDGEON users on the subject just because they are not on the same page as you. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The user has edited their reply to include the following: If this targeting continues, this deletion page will be deleted as a violating wikipedia standards of conduct. I'm not sure who you think you are to make this threat, but it's utterly baseless. AfD voting pages don't get deleted and no policy violations appear to be present on the page. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't delete a deletion page, there is no process for doing this. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I've started a thread at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard regarding the removal of Template:COI and Template:Autobiography from the article. I'm concerned by the content in the Early life section that is not sourced (cite 4 doesn't actually verify her birthplace, high school, or sports played, and the degrees earned and Stonewear work are unsourced) and I also note that some sources such as endorsements of the proposed National Monument by the California Democrats and Sierra Club do not mention Wulff. The article likewise shouldn't say merely that "stories have been published" to link to them. Reywas92Talk 16:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This further establishing your conflict of interest, there are plenty of links in the article and if you were interested improving it, for example with the Stonewear Designs comment, you could find the link. You've written thousands of comments, which suggested this is how you make your living.
 * Is that the case? 2601:645:4300:4E20:BCE9:A049:B82:9059 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand what a conflict of interest is. The nominator clearly does not have a conflict of interest with the page that's being proposed for deletion. I will again remind you to assume good faith.Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do understand conflict of interest, entirely.
 * If the behavior implied good faith (adding sources, for example, from legitimate places) that would be a sensible conclusion - but it doesn't.
 * And notably, the question hasn't been answered. 2601:645:4300:4E20:BCE9:A049:B82:9059 (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? I make my living with a normal job unrelated to California, no one gets paid writing for Wikipedia. You should stop talking about things you don't understand. You don't understand conflict of interest if you think I have one here. Reywas92Talk 17:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You have not attempted to improve the article in any way only to delete it, without cursory research. That action is at issue and implies a bias and COI. The entirely of your comments here do not include actual references to sources outside yourself. 2601:645:4300:4E20:BCE9:A049:B82:9059 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I still believe you're failing to understand what a conflict of interest is. You've repeatedly accused others having a COI with the subject of the article, yet, you've failed to identify how this user is supposedly unbiased towards the subject. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother with "the random string of numbers for a username", seems pointless. Yes I know it's an internet protocol. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: This appears more as an autobiography than an article. The subject of the article itself is not notable but the organization they created arguably is. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I would not be opposed to a redirect/merge to the organization she founded, but it doesn't currently have an article. Willing to revisit my !vote if consensus is to redirect or merge instead. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Citations continue to touch verifiable sources. New citations added verifying Stonewear Designs work. The articles are not about the organization so the comments here don't seem reflect the content of the articles, and perhaps, because they are not being researched and read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.5 (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * More resources added to the page. It seems nearly every statement has a link to a verifiable reference or respected news source, and the rationale for deletion is looking more and more odd. The page in improved though, so in that way, this discussion is serving the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.5 (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep : It could be that there has been some kind of misunderstanding - because the page didn't include as many references as it does now. And perhaps, there is an urge delete without looking closely at content, which may be automatic. In any case, this neglected page has been updated, and it appears some good edits have been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.5 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate vote by same IP, which is probably the same as IPv6 above, but AGF not striking that one. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: discussion s-protected for seven days due to excessive disruption by drive-by IP edits. BD2412  T 16:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete for being a selfpromotional autobiography with no notability established (i.e. fails GNG). - Tom Twitter Verified Badge.svg &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject not supported by sourcing sufficient to meet GNG. Also note the numerous attempts at socking, canvassing, and other disruption surrounding this article. JoelleJay (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO and obvious votestacking by unregistered users, likely WP:CANVASSed off-wiki. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Question. Is it possible to postpone this discussion until after we know the outcome of the Range of Light National Monument Act (proposed December 16, 2022)? It may or may not be too soon for a page dedicated to Range of Light National Monument, since it's "just a bill" at the moment, but it strikes me that could be the best merge target for a lot of the Deanna Lynn Wulff content if the page will not be kept, including the articles she has written and is quoted in, which are currently cited in her bio. Or, we could merge some content or sources to List of proposed national monuments of the United States. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no way this gets through both houses in the next two weeks, so I don't think that's necessary. I've gone ahead and written a section at Sierra National Forest with merged sources; since the proposal is to convert the whole forest, if/when the bill passes that page would be moved anyway. It would be better for the IP/Ms. Wulff to contribute there about the initiative rather than the autobiography. Reywas92Talk 15:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Super. Thanks so much for doing that. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw I will also admit I really don't like that list of proposed monuments (through which I discovered this article which is an orphan), since most proposals don't end up going anywhere and can be transient. Several of the external links in that column are already dead and the page isn't even that old! Obviously there's been so many more proposals over the years with varying extents of progress and it's not really objective to list them this way indefinitely. Plus half the list is places named as potential candidates but which don't necessarily have advocacy behind them. Reywas92Talk 16:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, poorly sourced and looks like a mess, and probably impossible difficult to keep properly updated. Seems like Sierra National Forest was the right place to put the info, I wasn't sure because I wondered if the boundaries were the same (I suppose it can get split out later). Cielquiparle (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I am rather wary of punitive deletions but this seems like a borderline case where the COI issues have not been adequately resolved. For now I would say, maybe it's just a bit WP:TOOSOON, and from my point of view, there is no prejudice if someone without a conflict creates an article on DLW if there is more in-depth secondary coverage about her in the future (e.g., when there is more progress on national monument status, or outside of that). In the meantime, there are many other websites and wikis that offer more editorial control and are better for WP:PROMOTION, that may be a better fit than Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But in case you haven't read it already, please do take a look at Autobiography, which links to this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography Cielquiparle (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2022 (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.