Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hapka

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hapka[edit]

Mark Hapka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

BLP of a young actor with yet no significant roles in the industry. Closest has been an ongoing role in one of those online-online productions that take place side by side with the plot of an actual TV show but is not the show, and an alleged starring role in a still in-production project with next to know information on IMDB - clearly not attached to any major studio. Fails WP:ACTOR and there's nothing in the article to suggest he'd be notable in any other way, and certainly no independent, reliable sources to that effect. DreamGuy (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user's block-evading sock. Invalid !vote per WP:BAN. DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll say it: his role on Days of Our Lives is not significant. Mere returning characters are not significant. We're looking for starring roles, not individual appearances you can call "guest star" spots and from then on refer to as "starring roles." If the future lead projects pan out as actual, notable prouctions instead of the web-only amateur films you've been promoting on articles, then a Wikipedia article would be justified. That's not now. DreamGuy (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being in 60 episodes (so far) on one of the most notable daytime soaps is definitely significant, as not exactly a walk-on or a guest spot. Time for a little perspective. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "miss" the actual TV series, it's just a minor appearance (not a starring role) that fails WP:ACTOR. And, frankly, your idea of "not helpful" is pretty bizarre. How exactly is it not helpful to know that the only starring role is in an unreleased indie film by nobody important? DreamGuy (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you term a minor appearance has itself received in-depth coverage in reliable sources. So it must be that their reasons for covering his inclusion in the series were not because they felt it "minor". And please, why do you keep linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers rather than to the applicable notability guideline? Also, why does your nomination stress "clearly not attached to any major studio", when nowhere in guideline or policy does it mandate that an actor must be attached to a major studio to be conseidered notable? His notability is through significant coverage in reliable sources, and I will trust a closing admin to make a determination based upon the article and guideline, and not weight of numbers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article, of course, tells us that it's a "lead recurring role", whatever that might be. Incidentally, The Danny McKay Project is supposedly notable because Hapka is in it. No one else in it is, it's an upcoming film and there are no reliable sources that so much as mention it. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is so much as mentioned in the in-depth article on Hapka in Back Stage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. The otherwise completely unknown film is mentioned in passing. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's lucky then that the AfD is not about a film, but a person... and luckier still that the person in question has been the subject of more-than-trivia coverage in reliable sources, so as to meet the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG and the basic inclusion criteria of WP:BIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this actor has been the subject of multiple reliable sources, as indicated by the sources found by MichaelQSchmidt. Also, a starring guest role should be considered a lead role, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has been in notable projects, not just episodes for various shows. And being in 16 episodes of a notable television series, makes you notable in itself. Dream Focus 17:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Being in notable projects does not make one notable. Yes, 16 episodes of a notable television series would likely do it, but "Ghost Whisperer: The Other Side" is not a TV series, notable or otherwise. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Ahhh... but Ghost Whisperer: The Other Side does not have to be a television show. Per WP:ENT: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" (my emphasis). I am already sold on the subject meeting WP:GNG, but it might seem that the (as yet) unwritten article on Ghost Whisperer: The Other Side will have no difficulty in showing itself as notable [4]. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 3 July 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Hapka&oldid=1069642869"