Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Haapala

Mark Haapala

[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)

Restored PROD. Rationale for PROD: Non notable filmmaker/academic. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lots of IMDB, primary sources and listings but nothing with any real independent coverage about him. Awards are not major. UtherSRG (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. UtherSRG (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous/concurrent discussion at WP:ANI#My Wikipedia page of over 15 years is Suddenly Gone and I have no clue as to why despite checking deletion logs (permalink). —Cryptic 02:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a foregone conclusion. User:UtherSRG obviously came across this via the dumb discussion at ANI where a bunch of veteran editors, in an apparent effort to prepare this article's creator User:Thehaaps for what will be reams of blatant WP:CIVIL policy violations from unconscionably cruel assholes here, swarmed him with new and unique and verbose ways of telling him he's a fucking idiot. Any decent person can see that all of these messages should have been directed at him somewhat privately, either on his talk page or via email, but maybe pantsing the guy on a high-traffic noticeboard was the kind thing to do since he'll be better prepared to enter the AFD arena to do battle with this community's meanest, most untouchable oldsters. I wonder why, in light of another editor at that ANI thread promising to hold off on nominating this article for deletion until it could be worked on, UtherSRG had to speed up the process of executing this good-faith, badly overmatched person but in the end, this is guaranteed to get deleted so whatever. City of Silver 03:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd found the RFU request before seeing the ANI discussion, so maybe you should check your attitude and assumptions and keep the discussion here purely about the article in question. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Had you first read what I said before you responded to it, you'd know I said literally nothing, not one word, that isn't about the article in question. City of Silver 06:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as admin who restored the PROD in response to the ANI Cryptic linked. I did not see the Refund request before UtherSRG processed it but we ended up in the same place. I did not do an exhaustive BEFORE and likely won't have time before this discussion concludes, it was simply a contested PROD. To anyone who didn't wander here from any of the aforementioned discussions, the subject is aware of this link and may participate. They are relatively inexperienced and here in good faith. Please pardon any errors. Star Mississippi 03:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In full disclosure, I notified Explicit as the admin who originally responded to the PROD as I neglected to on restoration. Star Mississippi 03:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Star Mississippi- I'm completely green in this arena and I appreciate some of the more tolerant comments from you and City of Silver and SnowRise. I certainly didn't mean to set of a firestorm- just was trying to find out why a wiki page that had been around for over a decade seemingly vanished overnight. It's been made pretty clear to me that the page is going to be removed, but I certainly am grateful to encounter some nice folks in here like you who didn't make me feel like a total pos. Anyway- Cheers. Thehaaps (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, don't worry about it: we were all new at one point or another. With that, you're taking everything with an unusual degree of grace -- a number of people in your boots throw epic kicking and screaming fits -- and we appreciate your courtesy. Ravenswing 16:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm here from the ANI thread myself. @EEng did a thorough review of the sources previously in the article (turning up nothing notable), but my own BEFORE holds much the same: that the indie films and shorts with which the subject's been involved fall well short of notability, that such awards as are claimed are minor, and that the subject doesn't meet any of the pertinent notability standards. Ravenswing 04:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This is often what is done when restoring deleted PRODs so let me put in a pitch for that here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify should only apply to recently created pages, not one that was there for years before. This AFD should come to a decision about whether to keep the topic or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wandered here from WP:ANI. Searches I've conducted turn up nothing that shows that this passes either WP:GNG or WP:DIRECTOR. TarnishedPath^talk 08:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, I don't think draftify is appropriate because the subject still wouldn't be notable. Draftify is generally appropriate where either an article is newish or where notability can be shown with a bit of work. TarnishedPath^talk 08:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment draftification is a dubious outcome because (1) it's usually used for newly-minted articles that were pushed into main-space prematurely but could become acceptable with a bit of extra work, while this article has existed for a long time, and (2) draftification can easily become deletion-by-waiting-6-months (i.e. Thehaaps, if you don't get the article about you up to Wikipedia's notability standards within 6 months in draft-space, or at least remember to make periodic edits to it, it will be automatically deleted). I would recommend that Thehaaps keep a personal copy, so that if this article is deleted, and they subsequently find better sourcing and wish to resubmit, they can recreate the improved article through AfC (Articles for creation). This is a safe and relatively private way to check notability and wording, and avoid the unpleasantness of being dragged through the more negative public noticeboards. Elemimele (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion at ANI. Subject is not notable. I'd recommend that Thehaaps copies the content of this article and if he needs it for his work, uses it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Admittedly the article is well written, but it still doesn't meet the guidelines for notability. » Gommeh (he/him) 14:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV found in any searches, just passing mentions. If it's exposure you seek for your work, then I suggest you direct people to your IMDb page, as it's a top search result and probably gets more page views than this article ever did. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia.☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 19:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear notability fail and very clearly was an attempt at self-promotion. I oppose draftifying. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]