Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote:
I totally agree that creators of fictional material are not a reliable source for their own notability in 99.9% of the cases, but I also believe that for uncontroversial information like character information creators are a source far more superior than fansites (who speculate) and newspaper articles and interviews (who can misunderstand and misinterpret).
I agree completely with this. As long as some credible independent sources exist for the major premise of the article, sourcing details from the originators is no different from sourcing minor details on a company from the company's website. Why would anyone have a problem with that, at least in general?
This sounds sensible. Perhaps what we need some where is a list of what would be "standard" information in a biographical article. Essentially we would be looking at the kind of boring data that would be found in a "Who's Who" that chose to include the individual: date and place of birth and marriage, where they went to school, etc. Any of ths stuff could still be disputed, put it would be presumed valid unless that happens.
Ec