Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Van Orden


 * 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. There are multiple subsets of the notability criteria under which this individual could be assessed, but the consensus here seems to be that he doesn't meet any of them. Yunshui 雲 水 13:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Derrick Van Orden

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Candidates are not generally notable per WP:NPOL and not seeing anything else to make him notable. Should he be elected he would be notable Gbawden (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep He's been in movies and was cited in the Washington Examiner. Might need to be edited, not deleted. Dreamanderson (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, creator should take it back to their sandbox, if he gets elected it can be recreated. Mztourist (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete His film role is no where near notable. His work as a soldier is not notable. His political candidacy is not yet notable, and any coverage of that is routine. We in almost all cases do not create articles until candidates get elected. I have no idea how likely he is to be elected, but until that happens he is not notable enough to have an article. We still have several articles on past failed candidates, many dating back over a decade, that should probably be removed due to our current guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Respectfully disagree, this Wikipedia entry is that of a military figure with acting and writing accolades. His political candidacy is discussed in one sentence. It is also not accurate that his film role is not significant as he is a main character in Act of Valor with lines throughout and extended screentime during his 1-1 interrogation of the villain - Christo. Even if we hypothetically conceded that his film, soldier, candidacy, and author work are all not notable alone the culmination together makes Van Orden a noteworthy individual. Is his political ambition causing this entry to be controversial? I am also not seeing how this fails WP:GNG. Could you please elaborate as to what sources lack "independence" or "reliability"? A standard web search produces numerous additional results including featured appearances in military podcast interviews and pre-political guest appearances on Fox News and Blaze Media to discuss special forces (I would be happy to link). Thank you for reviewing. User:Postalpresident
 * Delete Not seeing any credible claim of notability. Not notable under WP:SOLDIER or WP:AUTHOR. Has a significant role in one film, but WP:NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple films. My advice is: get elected.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep fits criteria 8 WP:SOLDIER "Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing." User:Postalpresident
 * hi, have struck out your 2nd "keep" as editors can make the same recommendation once only - see WP:AFDFORMAT. ps. you don't need to type your signature if you add 4 tildes (the "squiggle" on the left of the "1" on the keyboard) at the end of each statement as your signature and a date/timestamp will then appear, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable political candidate, not convinced by the WP:SOLDIER argument. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per SportingFlyer.  Royal broil  22:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article isn't actually claiming or sourcing anything that would get him over our notability standards for soldiers, authors or actors either, so the fact that he's done those things still doesn't controvert his lack of notability as a politician. Authors are not notable just because you can source the existence of their books to directories like the Library of Congress or GoodReads; making an author notable enough for a Wikipedia article requires you to reference the books to reliable source coverage about the books, such as news stories about his authorship of a book or critical reviews of the book in media. Actors are not notable just because you can source the fact that they had an acting role to IMDb; making an actor notable enough for a Wikipedia article requires reliable source coverage about his acting, such as news articles about his acting or critical reviews of his performance in media. And on and so forth: the notability test for a person isn't what the article says, it's how well the things it says are referenced to media coverage about him. But the only sources here that represent any sort of media coverage about him are (a) a single article about his as yet non-winning electoral candidacy, which is not enough to make him more special than other non-winning electoral candidates because every candidate in every district can always show some of that, and (b) a single article in a smalltown community hyperlocal about him opening a smalltown café, which is not a notability claim at all. And appearances in media aren't notability boosters, either: people do not get over the notability bar by being the speaker in media coverage of other things, they get over the notability bar by being the subject that other people are speaking or writing about. (And also, The Blaze is not a reliable or notability-assisting source at all anyway.) Obviously he'll qualify for an article in November if he wins the seat, since his notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder", but nothing here is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Currently fails WP:GNG as well as WP:SOLDIER, WP:NPOL, WP:NACTOR and WP:NAUTHOR. If he wins we can always re-create the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2020 (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.