Deletion of Derrick Van Orden

Comment: Not seeing any credible claim of notability. Not notable under  or . Has a significant role in one film, but  requires significant roles in multiple films. My advice is: get elected
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:AUTHOR||WP:NACTOR)

Comment: fails  and , creator should take it back to their sandbox, if he gets elected it can be recreated
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)