Talk:Edgar Church
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edgar Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Notability edit
I'm editing as fast as I can to indicate significance . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf7e (talk • contribs) 22:44, 13 March 2008
Conflict of interest edit
The {{COI}} template should not be used lightly. Unless you can prove that someone has a conflict of interest, it is better to merely ask that the article adhere to the standards of Wikipedia. Nowhere do I see any evidence that the creator of this article is directly affiliated with either Edgar Church or Mile High Comics. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Potential source edit
Steve Duin of The Oregonian has co-written a book entitled Comics: Between the Panels in which he interviewed Chuck Rozanski about the Edgar Church collection.[1] I don't own it, but it might be useful source for this article. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Importance edit
As the importance of this collection cannot be overstated to the popularity of comics, this article should really be fleshed out a lot more. Comics currently drives the entire entertainment market and its popularity is in large part to the continued interest in this particular collection. It has legendary status. Despite Mile High Comics becoming notable entirely for this collection, their continued efforts to popularize and promote comics should not be overlooked. I don't know who thought there was a conflict of interest in this article but stub class is ridiculous.
Comics routinely make the news with their record sales. Mile High copies, if they would come up for sale, would break almost every one of those records. It is the most notable pedigree in existence.2601:182:4381:E60:7038:48A1:F067:1729 (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)