User talk:Thehaaps#top

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Haapala.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thehaaps, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Haapala, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thehaaps. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Mark Haapala".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Haapala}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haaps. I saw your ANI inquiry and took a look at your refund request (and fixed a technical error with the syntax you used for your template while I was at it). The reason I decided to pop on your talk page here is because I think your request is likely to be denied as written, and I wanted to let you know why and try to assist you in trying to find a way to augment it.

First, I can appreciate why you might be confused as to why an article could be up for so long without objection and then suddenly face deletion. Unfortunately, that is just the way things play out here sometimes. Sometimes deficiencies in articles just are not caught very quickly, or they are edge cases and are not initially proposed for deletion despite multiple formal or informal reviews. However, an article always stays vulnerable to deletion so long as it is not adequately sourced such as to establish its WP:NOTABILITY.

And it's important you start your research on this issue with that policy. Because while your REFUND request demonstrates that you understand that all statements on Wikipedia articles that may be challenged have to be WP:verified by WP:reliable sources, what you may not realize is that an article also has to demonstrate the particular notability of its subject even to exist. In the longterm, this means an article must pass the WP:GNG test. However, in the shortterm, articles are sometimes kept if there is an WP:SNG test you can meet for the article. Either way, the most critical element you should be looking for is coverage in reliable sources which is detailed and specifically about the subject of the article (you, in this case). If you can find some sources that you think meet this criteria, I would be very happy to go over them with you and you give you my honest assessment about whether they qualify as "reliable sources" in the meaning of that term on this project, and whether they are sufficient to meet our notability guidelines.

Be aware also that since this article is about you, it would be best practice to have the aid of another editor in creating any prose for the article, since you have a WP:Conflict of interest on this topic. It's worth noting that our COI policies have gotten much stricter in the 15 years since you wrote the original (now deleted) article. Also, as noted at ANI, you should definitely take a look at WP:PROMOTIONAL to help guide your approach to this project. There is a decent chance that your article just may not be an appropriate entry in the encyclopedia at this time. However, if you wish, I will assist you in the process of figuring out if it is and in reviving it, if possible. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously the best SnowRise... thank you Thehaaps (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to help: I appreciate the politeness and the good faith which you brought with you when making your inquiry. In case you missed it, the article has already been restored by a helpful admin (Star Mississippi), meaning it is temporarily live again. However, this is only temporary, as an AfD (a type of process in which an article is nominated for deletion) has already been filed, meaning it could be a matter of just a few days before the article is taken down again. However, bear in mind that such decisions, either way, are typically not permanent, and even if the article does end up being taken down again in the next few days, that decision can be reversed at any point, if we manage to find the sources to demonstrate notability.

Now, first order of business: before I go over the existing sources with you, can I ask if you have any new ones not presently in the article which might be used to establish notability? Ideally these would meet the following criteria: 1) they would be reliable, meaning that they come from news or academic media that constitute significant professional publications with their own editorial controls. So, in this case, probably something along the lines of interviews by a newspaper or industry magazine has had with you or about you, or a critical review by an entertainment or art critic of your work? 2) It should be WP:INDEPENDENT of you, meaning that it is not self-promotion by yourself or someone closely connected to you or your professional work. And 3) the reference should include more than passing reference to you: it should be at least partially about you specifically. Can you think of any publications that might meet those criteria? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.indiewire.com/features/craft/new-york-television-festival-announces-independent-pilot-competition-winners-and-development-deal-recipients-68683/

https://deadline.com/2014/10/new-york-television-festival-announces-2014-winners-861118/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/new-york-tv-festival-unveils-743983/

https://thecomicscomic.com/2014/10/27/winners-of-development-deals-at-the-2014-new-york-television-festival/

https://letterboxd.com/director/mark-haapala/

Do any of these count? Thehaaps (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in my opinion, none of them will be very helpful for purposes of establishing WP:Notability/passing WP:GNG. The first four probably all pass WP:RS, and definitely pass WP:INDEPENDENT. Where we run into trouble is that none of them satisfy WP:DEPTH, because they merely list your name and the award, without any significantly detailed discussion of your work or its critical/artistic relevance. The fifth source passes WP:INDEPENDENT, but does not pass WP:RS, and probably does not pass WP:DEPTH.

By the way, on a side note, do you know where I might be able to stream or procure Dog it Down? I would like to watch it, if possible; the story sounds remarkable. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you, SnowRise. Guess it'll be what'll be. And Oh- I'm totally flattered. This is the Cut we made for PBS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMt6D36t5J4. Hope you enjoy. It's based on a true story... Thehaaps (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, Haaps: I appreciate you and the reasonable way you have approached this situation as a Wikipedia outsider (for now! perhaps we will benefit from your engagement moving forward). Not every person in your position takes our policies in stride or attempts to understand them in good faith. Unfortunately our notability criteria can be a little restrictive, but I hope you will not take it as a judgment on the value of your work in the grander scheme of things. And remember, as your profile develops, things can always change: if and when you have new sources to share, you can always stop by my talk page to ask if they change the equation enough to revive your WP:BLP.

In the meantime, thank you so much for the link! Yes, I figured it was a true story, and actually, in an interesting quirk of chance, I once knew a former American swabby (sp?) who served on the West Virginia, so I'll be watching with that context in mind, in addition to sampling the work of a new friend. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a deal, new friend! Thehaaps (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thehaaps. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thehaaps, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz for all of your help!! I appreciate you Thehaaps (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]