Talk:Bill Schanes

Needs a complete re-write

This article is more like a duplication of the Pacific Comics article than a bio of a notable person (is he notable?). It is also unsourced as the only reference is a dead link to a formerly archived page. The other reference that was being used was a one paragraph bio he used when he participated in a commics forum, which I deleted. OccamzRazor (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommend merge into Pacific Comics

After stipping away all of the content about Pacific Comics (not about Bill) that was duplicated on that article as well as unrelated info about Bill's brother, I see that there is really nothing left that can't be easily addressed in the main article. OccamzRazor (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Before it was gutted, this page did indeed share a lot of its information with Pacific Comics - since Mr Schanes was one of the brothers who co-founded PC. He went on to work for Steve Geppi's Diamond distribution company as a VP (where, as far as I can tell, he still works). He is clearly a key individual (with Phil Seuling, Bud Plant, Cat Yronwode, Geppi and others) in the early days of comics' Direct Market, and as such entirely notable - in that context, and as a publisher. I see no reason to merge the pages. One is about the individual, the other about the compan(y/ies).

The first (dead) reference can easily be re-found, but for ease, it's here; the second is indeed a one paragraph biography, but I don't know where you get "he used when he participated in a comics forum" - it look(ed/s) to me like a specially-tailored one written as a brief biography of a panelist at the 2007 "ICv2 Graphic Novel Conference," and certainly a reasonable biographic source.

I'm not entirely sure which point you feel most pertinent: the "un-sourced" nature; the notability or solely the duplication of information..? I thought I'd re-written it from a second perspective (slightly, but enough) to be about him, rather than PC. Plus the additional information that was only here. Shall I revert it and simply change the source for the time being, pending comments for a further (slight or more thorough) re-write..? ntnon (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Even better source for the article here. ntnon (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nton, you stated: I don't know where you get "he used when he participated in a comics forum" - it look(ed/s) to me like a specially-tailored one written as a brief biography of a panelist at the 2007 "ICv2 Graphic Novel Conference" and certainly a reasonable biographic source.

I have to assume that you have never been a panelist or presenter at a conference. I have done so at one national conference and multilple regional and local conferences. The published bios of panelists and presenters always come from information provided by the speaker. If their bio is too long (which is often the case), the org simply summarizes the bio provided by the speaker. I have never seen an org that did its own research on its speakers and wrote verifiable bios that would qualify as WP:RS.

If information published about me by the organizations in which I've been a speaker or panelist would simply be accepted as fact, then I could write a WP qualifying article about myself. However, I can assure you that I am not someone who has notoriety deserving of a Wikpedia article.

You may personally believe that brief biographical info presented in conference brochures is "certainly a reasonable biographic source," but that does not make it a fact, or a WP:RS. OccamzRazor (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Ah, well, you said "Comics forum", and although there is a slight case to be made for a "conference" being alternately labelled a "forum," the usage of forum (particularly on the Internet, and in the phrase "comics forum") was not the correct term to use, as it implied an Internet forum, which is not the case. So that was my major concern on that point.
2. You're not wrong, however, that most biographies derive from information provided by the individual. What you seem to be implying though, is that it only applies to this type of mini-bio, rather than cross-applying to (almost-)EVERY article ever written about a notable individual. Information is generally supplied in Press packs, or by agents or from previous interviews and articles - ultimately deriving from the individual him/herself. Which would, under your logic, decimate 99% of reliable sources. Fortunately, although counter to your complaint, the BEST source of information about any individual is, ultimately (and with caveats) themself.
3. Compare WP:RS with the comparable section on sources under Biographies of living persons, wherein you'll find that arguing that the ICv2 mini-bio was provided by Mr Schanes makes it a MORE reliable source -

"Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs."

...plus, ICv2 is, I understand, a "reliable, third party" "(semi-)academic" organisation, and applicable as a source for that reason also. ntnon (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes revert the recent edits and work on introducing other sources. (Emperor (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC))