Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William 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. I see a consensus that the subject fails WP:GNG. In answer to comments; the statement that there /could/ be sources carries no weight; at a minimum we need to have a basis for expecting sources to be out there. Also, the fact that he died a long time ago obviously does not preclude meeting WP:GNG as articles on numerous historical figures attest. Just Chilling (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Van Orden

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Van Orden was a member of the militia of a city. He was not even a high ranking officer in that militia, which in and of itself would not make him notable, nor was he a member of it when it was continued under the same name as a territorial militia and fought multiple wars. He was not even an active officer in 1845 when the Nauvoo Militia was involved with skirmishes with other militia's in Hancock County, Illinois trying to discourage the burning of crops and houses. No, he was part of the honor gaurd for the slain head of the militia, and then got pnemonia and died. The first source mentions him as an example of the everman, only because the author is his direct descendant. The second is a family geneological web page. Nothing comes even remotely close to showing notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the article written in the Deseret News qualifies his notability as being an ancestor of the author. Does not meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisarepa (talk • contribs) 2019-07-14T00:31:33 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is a "redirect" (depending on wikistats of reader hits on this page?( (no, i don't know what the target would be) out of the question? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death of Joseph Smith. BIO1E, seems to fail GNG. Died while guarding Smith's body. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we are treating Brigham Young University as some sort of diploma mill now, I am inclined to treat The Lives of William Van Orden and Julia Ann Haight Van Orden, a history written by Bruce A. Van Orden, as a source written by an identifiable credentialled expert historian, including plenty of notes about primary sources to back it up. That said, it really spends most of its time not talking about this person. There's a dearth of information even in Professor Van Orden's history, which has birth, marriage, death, purchase and sale of two things, the fact that he was a farmer (and might have done other things, although this is not nailed down as fact) and a lot of content about other events and other people. A quick search of the history books shows that this person otherwise gets a mention in the context of "the William Van Orden family" and that's about it. There simply isn't enough to hang a biography off, from Professor Van Orden or otherwise. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a PDF published on the family's website - vanordenfamily.org - which states explicitly that it "Bruce A. Van Orden, a great great grandson, Written in 2004, the 200th Anniversary of William’s Birth". The author is a qualified expert, however it is hard to call this an WP:INDEPENDENT source, and publication on a family website (without citations, in a voice that is far from undetached) is a tad different from most academic publications (e.g. [1]) by the same author. Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am well aware of it being a PDF. I have read it. In your eagerness to overstretch the independence criterion beyond advertising and autobiography of a person who died almost a century and three quarters ago, you have missed the wood for the trees. It doesn't actually provide information beyond the basic genealogy. There are four citations on its page 2 alone, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. This is a family history written by a descendent. Writing these histories (and other genealogical work) is very common within the LDS religion (and strongly promoted by the religion) and the existence of such a history does not by itself indicate significance of a subject regardless of whether or not the author can be considered an expert historian. There are tens of thousands of these that have been written by LDS people, some of whom happen to be experts in history. Paisarepa (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary, whether they are LDS or not is irrelevant, and it is the expertise of the author, the fact checking, the provenance, and the depth of the source that counts. Which is why the better argument at AFD is to read the source and determine and report how in-depth it is, as I did, rather than, as you are, attempting to dismiss a whole class of sources for fallacious reasons. Uncle G (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The author's religion is not relevant to the question of whether or not William Van Orden is a notable person, but it does provide context that helps explain why the author created this document about a person who is not generally notable. Note that the author did not publish the document in a manner consistent with his other academic publishing, nor does the author make an explicit or implicit claim that the subject of the document is notable other than in a relatively narrow context. Rather, the fact that the document was published on the family's website implies that the author was aware that the subject would be considered notable only by a limited audience, primarily his descendants. The document is an expertly written piece of family history but in this case neither the quality of the document nor the fact that the author is an expert historian makes the document evidence that the subject is notable on the level required for inclusion on Wikipedia. Paisarepa (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also if that work on William and Julia gives William notability, we should also create an article on Julia Haight Van Orden. Of course the first Wikipedia article I ever created was on Phoebe Carter Woodruff so I think that has some validity, although others clearly have not agreed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not providing information beyond genealogy generally does not, because all that we get from that is a genealogy database, which what Wikipedia is not. And it was Phoebe Whittemore Carter. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the points given in the article (a member of legion, guarding the bodies, die from pneumonia) makes him notable. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial claim of importance or significance, and the references are all personal histories written by his descendants (and not independent). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Nothing in the content shows notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To those who claim that the article doesn't meet GNG, this subject died about a century ago. How could you expect it to meet GNG? There could be sources. Masum Reza^📞 17:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.