User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200905235227/@comment-6032121-20200905235512

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive‎ | Inclusion debates‎ | @comment-1432718-20200905235227
Revision as of 13:31, 27 April 2023 by SV7 (talk | contribs) (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))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

…How is this an inclusion debate, exactly? Somebody asked a question. It was answered. And if anything it'd be an exclusion debate, the current state of affairs being thus-far-unquestioned validity.

Beyond that, I've said my piece: there is nothing obviously parodical in these stories, and in the absence of a statement from the authors which might show that it breaks Rule 4, I don't know why these could possibly be invalid. They're undoubtedly licensed, released, and stories.

I think the precedent set by Thread:177099 is fairly clear here, and I don't see why we have to open another lengthy debate just because some new users asked a question on the talk page due to being apparently unfamiliar with the finer points of our policy in this matter.

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=User:SOTO/Forum_Archive/Inclusion_debates/@comment-1432718-20200905235227/@comment-6032121-20200905235512&oldid=3500929"