User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45692830-20200723133026/@comment-6032121-20201007164200: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This was previously closed prior to the accidental Massive Discussions Data Loss(TM). The short version is, no evidence that this breaks Rule 4 or Rule 1 has been provided: indeed, we have quotes from the author both calling it a narrative (so it passes Rule 1) and an explicitly "valid" one (so it passes Rule 4). In addition, the OP hasn't read the book, which is usually grounds for summary closure of in/exclusion debates. '''The novel remains valid'''. | This was previously closed prior to the accidental Massive Discussions Data Loss(TM). The short version is, no evidence that this breaks Rule 4 or Rule 1 has been provided: indeed, we have quotes from the author both calling it a narrative (so it passes Rule 1) and an explicitly "valid" one (so it passes Rule 4). In addition, the OP hasn't read the book, which is usually grounds for summary closure of in/exclusion debates. '''The novel remains valid'''. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200723133026-45692830/20201007164200-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:22, 27 April 2023
This was previously closed prior to the accidental Massive Discussions Data Loss(TM). The short version is, no evidence that this breaks Rule 4 or Rule 1 has been provided: indeed, we have quotes from the author both calling it a narrative (so it passes Rule 1) and an explicitly "valid" one (so it passes Rule 4). In addition, the OP hasn't read the book, which is usually grounds for summary closure of in/exclusion debates. The novel remains valid.
