Talk:Michael Parkes

Notability needs asserting
Johnbod 00:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Highly notable artist. Do not remove the article. Drutt 00:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Highly notable artist. In the area of stone lithographs he may well be unique. DDB 09:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added a notability|biographies tag. Refernces so far link to a gallery that carries the artist's work. No independant third party references as to notability. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The notability tag is unreasonable for an artist whose prints and books are widely distributed. My understanding is that Steltman Galleries, Amsterdam is not currently affiliated with Parkes. --Zeamays (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Being "unreasonable" is currently your opinion since there are no references from a reliable source. Please read WP:CREATIVE for what is required as far as references for Creative professionals. Steltman Galleries is not secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added some additional books and a new reference. Perhaps you should read WP:CREATIVE.  You should have seen that I did not cite Steltman for notability, but for Mr. Parkes biography, which I confirmed in the new reference.
 * The Notability of Mr. Parkes can be estimated by the widespread availability of his works in print form and by the numerous books that have been published that have been purchased for the collections of major libraries. One of the book citations I added was from the Library of Congress catalog, which surely is a significant library. Just in the Washington, DC area, "Art of Michael Parkes" / introduction by John Russell Taylor (2006) is listed in the library catalogs of George Mason University, the University of Maryland College Park, and George Washington University, and a total of 23 WorldCat libraries ([see: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/77527866&referer=brief_results]).  Michael Parkes : paintings, drawings, stonelithographs, 1977-1992 by Michael Parkes;  Hans Redeker is in a total of 43 WorldCat libraries, including the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) Library in New York ([see: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/30546125&referer=brief_results]) WorldCat shows "The world of Michael Parkes" (1999) is cataloged in 22 WorldCat libraries, [see: http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/43436423].  Even the German language volume, "Michael Parkes : Werkverzeichnis" by Michael Parkes;  Hans Redeker is held by three US libraries, including the Getty Research Library in Los Angeles.  Many of Parkes' books are also available on Amazon (including used copies of some of those that are out of print).  I think this should be convincing.  --Zeamays (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Refs were not valid and were removed for mostly WP:SPAM reasons. Steltman Galleries falls under ref-spam WP:SPAM, and is a questionable source since it is promotional in nature WP:QS. The Avalon Gallery Carmel link you keep restoring is flat out linkspam WP:SPAM. If this artist is notable as you claim then there should be lots of references you can use that are not questionable. WP:CREATIVE does not specifically cite mass reproduction/self reproduction/mass marketing as a form of notability. If you are saying this artist is notable by notoriety you may want to find a reference to a critic/commentator talking about "hey-- this guys work is everywhere/a cultural phenomenon", that would be notability by definition. Notability tag restored. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Steltman at one time had a commercial relationship with Parkes, that is true.  However, that doesn't mean that the books they published shouldn't be cited for further reading, particularly, as I noted above they are held by numerous highly-esteemed libraries.  You seem to be arguing that only non-commercial publishers can be cited, which is ludicrous. You have no basis for claiming Parkes is not notable.  If you have such a basis, please provide it, with suitable references, not your personal opinions.  I am deleting your tag, which is nothing but vandalism. --Zeamays (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to totally misunderstand WP:V and WP:CREATIVE. Notability is established by what other people say about an artist, not what they say about them selves. What libraries hold his books is not notability, we need books by other people about him, not books by people who hold a commercial relationship with him or books he has published himself. The burden of proof lies with you being in the "advocate" for this article WP:BURDEN. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The article is lacking that. I have actually added sources that help in that matter but since there does not seem to be any major critical comment on this artist he will need "multiple independent sources (to) prove notability". I think with the latests edits this article is almost there... it could use a few more and maybe another opinion. Continually removing the NOTABILITY tag is counterproductive to this process since it is there to let other editors know about the problem and maybe fix it. You should refrain from doing that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Fountains, It is apparent that you have not fully read the citations you cited,

Creative professionals Shortcut: WP:CREATIVE

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:


 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
 * I furnished plenty of catalog listings from significant libraries. You can look them up yourself. Parkes  original lithos, signed giclées and paintings are shown at many commercial galleries, which would appear to qualify for (b).  The author of the commentaries on Parkes in several of the books, John Russell Taylor, a critic for the London Times, is himself significant enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, which would appear to qualify Parkes for (c).
 * Please desist from repeatedly placing this inappropriate tag. --Zeamays (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to read the whole guideline to find out what sections of it mean:


 * --> "libraries" would be highly significant for writers. Self published books by a non-writer would be much less significant, some libraries have no significance --> Library of Congress for example maintains a copy of almost all books published and specifically states there inclusion is in no way an endorsement because of that.


 * -->a "significant exhibition" is one that is "intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" i.e. the artist is chosen by some knoledgable committee, such as a Biennale. Commercial galleries are not "permanent collections" by definition.


 * --> The only citations of John Russell Taylor so far are in Parkes books/Parkes generated press material, that is not "intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."


 * So we are still short of what WP:BIO is looking for. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So we are still short of what WP:BIO is looking for: No we're not.  Only recently did Parkes begin publishing posters under Swan King. Most (or maybe all) of the books were published by Steltman, as you surely must know.  Your argument is still unreasonable.  I have the facts.  Look up the library holdings yourself.  Major libraries like those have standards for their holdings.  It really doesn't matter where John Russell Taylor puts his introduction, its still his opinion as an established critic.  --Zeamays (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Parkes-Gargoyles-Poster.jpg
Image:Parkes-Gargoyles-Poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
I have edited the intro to mention that Parkes lives in Spain and to delete the claim that his posters and books are self-published, for which I can find no published evidence. The posters and books I could examine bear the imprint of Steltman Galleries, not Parkes, so claims otherwise need to be referenced. --Zeamays (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I must correct that, since more recent posters bear the imprint Swan King Editions, which is owned by Parkes. --Zeamays (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Michael Parkes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081123044458/http://www.asfa-art.org/chesley/2003/product/parkes.html to http://www.asfa-art.org/chesley/2003/product/parkes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Parkes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528221044/http://budsartbooks.com/prod.cfm/pc/DRM01H/cid/17 to http://budsartbooks.com/prod.cfm/pc/DRM01H/cid/17
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090513032644/http://budsartbooks.com/prod.cfm/pc/DRM9HS/cid/17 to http://budsartbooks.com/prod.cfm/pc/DRM9HS/cid/17

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)