Talk:Paul Karslake

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 March 2020. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Possible copyright problem

The entire article is cut and paste from a paragraph on http://www.leigh-on-sea.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.66.15 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the history of this Wikipedia article shows how the wording was arrived at, bit by bit, by multiple editors over an extended period, it seems much more likely that the Leigh on Sea website copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. Thparkth (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible issues

1. At beginning of lede: Paul Karslake FRSA effectively states that the subject of the article is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He is not listed in Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts. However, there are 27,000 Fellows according to the FRSA web-site, so Karslake may be a Fellow. However, absent a verifiable statement of his Fellowship, it must be considered unverified.

2. He is the brother of Jo Wood, former wife of Ronnie Wood: The fact that his sister and former brother-in-law are wiki-notable may be interesting, but does not contribute to his notability.

3. was tutored by Sir Peter Scott: does this contribute to notability?

4. he met Salvador Dali: does this contribute to notability?

5. working for the LA Art Studios, CBS Television and Disney: does this contribute to notability?

6. collaborated on the EuroDisney project: in what capacity, and with what verifiability?

7. has had numerous solo exhibitions: would be nice to have one or two, in prestige environments specified, verifiably

8. Evening Standard Environment Award no citation noted and Google search did not find it -- does not mean it did not exist, but does strengthen need for citation,

9. even if it exists and he won it, does one award make notability?

10. frequently asked to tutor at art colleges and schools -- sounds like the reverse of academic distinction -- some verifiable prestige examples would strengthen the article -- their absence leads to question "are there any"

11. signing reproduction rights with company referenced by website that is not reached as expected is unimpressive

12. FRSA redux -- maybe he has -- but without a citation, who can tell

13. references for Karslake Centere are blind

14. first and second external links are to sites that are thin, third is self-referrant

I have posted these comments to see if WP has any control over material that I think is rather low quality, or if such material is kept to boost statistics. I find this of particular concern in relation to the difficulties thrown in my way with input that is very carefully considered, well sourced, and consistent with real world publishing Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely needs to be cleaned up a bit, but this Gnews search makes it pretty clear he's notable enough for an article here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list that this link displays is not acceptable as an indicator of notability. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test Michael P. Barnett (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list itself isn't an indicator of notability, but the items on the list do indicate notability -- for example, the claim that his painting of Keith Richards as a pirate inspired Depp's performance in PotC:TCotBP, and the various items referring to him as FRSA. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being an FRSA is not an "independent" source that is required for general notability guidelines, since the person can add themselves.

The claim regarding Keith Richards does not appear in the article.

The external links are to commercial galleries or to the website of the subject of the article, which is questionable self-citing. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Paul Karslake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem

Category

Possible issues

External links modified