Forum:Validity: The Airzone Solution

Opening post
Now that my validity proposal has concluded has concluded, I have another BBV Rule 4 by proxy case that I would like to discuss. This one deals with The Airzone Solution, which I think could have a case for R4bp because the Airzone Corporation is mentioned in Jay Eales' subsection of Burning with Optimism's Flames' Contributors section, which is treated as a valid source by this wiki. Now, I'm aware that the original Airzone Solution film isn't covered on this wiki do to having no official connection to the DWU, however, the novelization of it is, albeit as an invalid source, due to containing officially licensed references to DWU elements. I think it would make sense to validate the novelization of TAZ by R4bp because of this reference. Cgl1999 ☎  05:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
IIRC the original film isn't covered because it has no licensed connection to Who, not authorial intent; so the film, like Cyberon, isn't covered because of a rule two reason, not a rule four reason, so R4BP applies. Even hypothetically, if the original film was covered but as invalid... I still wouldn't believe R4BP applies. Contributors is a very very silly story. I believe it should be valid, but not anything we take so literally. The namedrop about the AirZone Corporation is a joke, amongst others like "saggy arsed Cybermen", it's all very tongue in cheek and on the nose. I don't feel that this story intended to bring the film "into DWU continuity", I think it was just a joke. And the coverage of the novelisation is ancillary to this, as the novelisation came out after the BWOF short story... so R4BP cannot apply to that, surely? Also, IIRC, I do believe that novelisation definitely isn't meant to take place in the DWU given the only licensed concepts it uses being depicted as in-universe fiction. 13:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I couldn't comment on the rest, but I think we should be very skeptical of reading any R4bp implications out of Contributors, even on the most maximally charitable reading of the policy. It's very tongue in cheek and I can't imagine that it intends to seriously "bring [things] into continuity", since it itself is only vaguely "in continuity". Najawin ☎  21:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)