Trusted
6,370
edits
Borisashton (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
: I did consider your point regarding if this even deserved at all when making the page but the notability of its writer being a future ''Who'' contributor tipped the scales for me in favour. Plus, it's very short (a few sentences) with little impact on other articles and would be the only ''Who''-related thing from ''TV21'' we didn't cover if excluded. --[[User:Borisashton|Borisashton]] [[User talk:Borisashton|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC) | : I did consider your point regarding if this even deserved at all when making the page but the notability of its writer being a future ''Who'' contributor tipped the scales for me in favour. Plus, it's very short (a few sentences) with little impact on other articles and would be the only ''Who''-related thing from ''TV21'' we didn't cover if excluded. --[[User:Borisashton|Borisashton]] [[User talk:Borisashton|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
:: Perhaps it could instead merit the "(fan work)" dab term and treatment entailed therein, rather than invalid coverage? It would certainly seem more liable for that than for actual coverage as a story, it very much failing rule 2, seeing as TV21 never had the Doctor Who license in the first place and this is at any rate after they've lost the Dalek license. {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Sig}} 19:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC) |