Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hapka

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

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

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep he has guest starred in several notable Television shows, and as of 2009, even is a regular cast member in the soap Days of Our Lives. He's even appeared in a few movies, he had a significant role in the webseries Ghost Whisperer: The Other Side, and has future lead projects. He is obviously a notable Actor, and hopefully will become een more notable in the future. And don't say his role in Days of Our Lives isn't significant. He's is a Regular Cast Member, of course it is significant, and his whole career makes him notable. Obviously a good Actor. PeterGriffin11298 (talk) 12:10, 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]

Delete - Non-notable actor. No significant roles in confirmed productions. No substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. -
talk) 16:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The subject meets inclusion criteria.[1][2][3] Perhaps the nom may have missed his cross-over from the web series to two starring appearance in the season finale of
The Ghost Whisperer. The nom's references to the non-RS IMDB and his not being attached to a major studio were not helpful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:19, 28 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

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,

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. -

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: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. -
  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: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.