Talk:I Am the Doctor: The Unauthorised Diaries of a Timelord

non-canonical because...
Though it may deal with canon material, no one involved in the current production of Doctor Who approved this in any way. This has the same status as The Doctor is A Big Gay Panda, a fan fiction work from Zone Publshing purporting to reveal the Doctor as, not a Time Lord but a big gay panda. --Stardizzy2 19:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * However, Amazon hasn't carried "Doctor Who is a Big Gay Panda" (is that a real book?) worldwide. Peel's book has worldwide distribution and is written by John Peel. All that said, if "Big Gay Panda" has indeed been distributed widely, then we need to create an article on it. 23skidoo 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely believe that this is an unofficial work, and on that basis should be ignored. The argument that it's on Amazon is hardly decisive.   Fanzines can be bought on Amazon as easily as corn cob holders.  Amazon is in many ways just a middleman, not that different from eBay.    Don't be fooled just because a book has an ISBN number and decent printing; these days it's entirely possible to have an amateur book look professional.  I'm also not sure I see the particular relevance of John Peel's authorship.  Is the argument that because Peel wrote it, it must be canonical?  No, there's no doubt in my own mind that this book should never be referenced in any other article, and so should be deleted, or at least merged onto a page that lists other works of unofficial fiction.


 * There's only one tiny problem with that stance.  TARDIS:Canon policy lets in tons of material that is really no more or less offensive than this work.  For some reason, we let in BBV material and Faction Paradox, both of which are created in such a way as to skirt the need for BBC approval.  This, it seems to me, isn't that much different.   Nevertheless it is a bit different.  After all, I think you'd have to say that it wholly violates the copyright of the BBC.  I mean, it's actually kinda ballsy, really.  Peel is using actual characters that are owned by the BBC, not quite skirting the issue like BBV and FP.  So although you have to thread a bit of a needle here, it is just on the other side of the foul line.


 * What I think this book does usefully point out, though, is a need to make that foul line a little brighter. I really don't understand why BBV and FP material sits alongside licensed material.   If we were to ban BBV and FP material, cases like this book would be a heck of a lot easier to adjudicate.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)