Forum:Deleted Scenes and Rule 4 By Proxy: Difference between revisions

As I believe I've outlined by now, most of the so-called "Rule 3-adjacent" concerns really resolve to Rules 1 and 2; a few more will resolve to Rule 4. As concerns the sheer ''question'' of whether a thing like this was "officially released" we should, as has been stated many times, follow common sense. Deleted scenes which have had official DVD releases (or the like) ''have'' been, um, officially released (whereas leaked ones are non-starters for coverage, even if we have reliable sources for their contents). The question is just whether they were released ''as'' clearly-delineated works of fiction, and if so, as works of fiction ''set in the DWU''. But sure, they pass Rule 3 itself. Plenty of thoroughly uncoverable things pass Rule 3 — in many cases that old bugbear, the off-handed interview quote, passes Rule 3! If the interview printed in DWM or broadcast in ''Confidential'', how could it not?

So ''when'' "unfinished" or previously-deleted gets an official release ''presenting it fiction'', can ''that'' be valid? It's a very narrow case. But yes, I think so. We'll come to R4BP in just a moment, but I believe such things can pass regular Rule 4 just fine. Look at the succinct blurb on ''[[P.S. (webcast)|P.S.]]'':