Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-6032121-20181104204754/@comment-24894325-20190415161411

This debate should have been closed at inception. It was opened with the attitude that, frankly, should not be encouraged: "I think this story should be in, and I hope there is evidence to support it in another story, but I am not going to check it myself. Let others do the checking during the debate." This position is especially untenable given that the Zagreus is available for free on Spotify.

But it has been given time and the result so far is that no single piece of evidence in support of the story is agreed to be sufficient by both the OP and NateBumber, who actually did the legwork of finding any evidence at all, for which I would like to officially thank him.

Despite the clear confirmation bias by the OP, who did not make an effort to find a quote from Zagreus but immediately announced the provided quote as sufficient despite objections of Nate, who actually listened to the story, despite all these quotes, they have no bearing on the matter.

The validity rules state that authors intending their stories to be placed outside DWU should be granted their wish. The original DCTT debate concluded that this was exactly this case. In particular, the validity rules state: "Most stories are trying to be narratively continuous at the time they're produced, even though they may be superseded by later stories."

DCTT was purposefully produced against the continuity with authors expressing their desire to disregard continuity completely.

No amount of second-guessing by others would change the authorial intent, as established in Forum:Inclusion_debate:_Death_Comes_to_Time. No amount of oblique references to the Steelman or the Caped Crusader by Marvel executives would make Superman or Batman a Marvel character. Thus, all the quotes and references provided above do not affect the results of the original debate in the slightest.

The debate is closed. Death Comes to Time remains invalid until a quote from Dan Freedman is found, where he explains how his killing of the Seventh Doctor and disparaging of the Eighth was meant to integrate his story into DWU at the time.

PS This was yet another pointless debate. It was held for no other reason than to have this debate. The story is already covered by the wiki. Its page is more extensive than those of many valid stories. Even if there were some reasons to change the status of this story from "covered invalid" to "covered valid," what would have been achieved by that? Beyond a successful inclusion debate, that is? Is it desired that the Seventh Doctor page necessarily states, "According to another account, the Seventh Doctor died there and then"? And each future consequent Doctor's page states at the end, "According to another account, this Doctor never existed"?

This story is significantly different from Unbound audio stories, where Benny's travels established them as alternative to the main continuity. No such in-universe evidence exists that DCTT is an alternate timeline or parallel universe (and no, Time Lords having terrible mind powers is very far from nailing DCTT: the Master has terrible mind powers and is not afraid to use it; even the Doctor completely erased Donna's memory).

Yes, tears in continuity are commonplace in DWU. They do not invalidate a story. However, completely rewriting the very basics of the universe, like making the Doctor a human inventor or making Time Lords homeless time gods, unambiguously places the story outside the wide but not infinite bounds of what can count as Doctor Who.