Talk:NOW Comics

POV

I have reverted this page to its previous version, the one where it actually had content. As the article was previously deleted for POV reasons, I have also added the POV tag --carelesshx _talk 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• The first paragraph ("NOW Comics was a comic book publisher founded by...") is relatively factual. If the information in it is true, it can stay, but it needs to be sourced.
• The second paragraph ("NOW's history was peppered with problems stemming from...") is highly negative material that could easily be taken as reflecting badly on the individual named in the first paragraph. If that's how it went down and we can source the material to reputable publications, then so be it, but it can't sit there at present due to WP:BLP concerns. The sentence "NOW's bad reputation for exploiting young talent was well earned and followed it through each of its three iterations." is the only real POV problem in the article. No matter how well sourced that sentence is, it can't stay because it sounds like Wikipedia is taking a position on NOW's business practices. Wikipedia has no position on such things and can't have one, but the article should reflect the best, most reliable positions that have been taken by others, attributing those positions to them. The problem is the phrase "well earned". If reliable sources can be produced that show that NOW had a bad reputation, then it could be written as "NOW developed a generally bad reputation for exploiting new talent, a reputation that followed it through each of its three iterations." followed by a reference to the source(s) who said so. Without the source, that sentence can't be there. With the words "well earned", that sentence can't be there no matter how well sourced.
• The section "The Complete List of NOW Comics (1986-2006)" doesn't bother me tremendously, but there are plenty of editors who will want that section gone, considering it "unencyclopedic". I'm just warning you. But it also needs to be sourced.
• The external links also need pruning. I doubt most editors here would consider two fansites for one title produced by this comics house to be appropriate external links for this article. Vadder 22:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: I see the mentions of "COMICS JOURNEL[sic] and HERO ILLUSTRATED", but those are far from acceptable ways to cite or even mention sources to support such strongly negative assertions. Vadder 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the main text to tone down the language slightly and make it less obviously inflammatory. I have also added {{fact}} tags in a few places. My intention is not to create a perfect, unbiased article (I don't know enough about the subject), but to make it obvious to readers that they should take care to check the facts of the article rather than take it at face value. As for the list, I have removed it for the exact reason you say. I think the article needs sourcing and expanding to make it worthwhile, maybe then it will be worth putting the list back in. --carelesshx _talk 02:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Facts: NOW Comics 3.0 shutdown in 2005 for many different reasons, but first and foremost, the lack of sales. Fact: Four (4) of the six (6) books were Marc Hansen's humor books, which no longer has a market. Fact: NOW Comics, like every other small independent comic book company since the 1980s has had bad press regarding cashflow problems (even Marvel Comics during its bankruptcy). This is not unusual for any start-up and is usually a cyclical problem, otherwise, how could any company publish eleven monthly titles, each with four contributing freelancers, timely for years. - Tony --Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.85.100 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Stuff to archive

http://www.nowcomics.com/flashmo_220_nature.swf WhisperToMe (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)