User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1506468-20190827123101/@comment-27343779-20190907162110

Although I agree that these specific stories should be covered by the wiki, per my understanding of the 4 rules, I also am afraid of the precedent it could set.

In my humble opinion, it is a combination of conditions that we have already accepted taken separately:

• A self published company (we already accept BBV)
• They are released freely (we already accept such stories as Big Finish's wining entries to the Paul Spragg opportunity or CandyJar's free pdf's)
• The characters license do not belong to the BBC (plenty of cases with BBV, Faction Paradox, Virgin's Bernice Summerfield range or even Big Finish's very first series of Bernice stories).

Which means that taken together we could have someone create their own company to publish pdf after claiming to have the license (i am assuming good faith) to an obscure character by a guest writer barely anyone remembers and we could then cover it on the wiki.

If we do, then I would not be surprised that at some point some obscure corner of the internet decide to register a company just to put a pdf online filled with hate speech staring a character by an obscure guest author to make us put a page about this. (Honestly, we have seen wilder things happen online in the recent years haven't we)

We can't ask for the publisher, the authors or the license owners to go forward each time, do we? Nor should stalk them online obviously.

Tangentially related, I would like to bring up that we currently already have some pages with unsubstantiated claims: for instance David Burton who claimed to have shot an unreleased story as the Eighth Doctor for the BBC during the Wilderness Years.

PS: I want to state again that I do not doubt for a minute Arcbeatle's claims in the specific case.