User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-188432-20130914014029/@comment-5918438-20161217064419

I can comment that this discussion is not yet at its completion, despite the amount of time it's been open.

PicassoAndPringles wrote: I actually found this on a sticky note from back in May, when this discussion first started up: in the extras, Trevor Martin says, "it [the audio] puts its place in the canon of Doctor Who." That is a pretty direct statement that a major person in the production saw it as DWU. This is quite conclusive for rule 4.

This is, I believe, the only stage play adaptation we do not currently consider a valid source. Simply having a distinct Doctor from the main Doctors already established does not automatically disqualify it. We cover many such incarnations already.

Given what I've read, it is quite incorrect to call the Doctor in this story the Fourth Doctor. There is no indication in this story that he is the Fourth Doctor, aside from the use of the period theme music. The stage play is its own entity, remember. It seems equally incorrect to specifically state that he's a future Doctor. Beyond that, I don't know--I have not listened to the story beyond its trailer.

There does not seem to be any indication, either, that this is an alternate universe. So, at this point, I predict that the ruling of this thread will probably be in favour of ruling it valid.

As far as the four rules go, as far as I know: This thread will likely be closed in favour of validity, as this passes all our rules. But for that to happen in the coming weeks, we need an effective plan for all pages involved. Presumably, the Doctor gets moved to The Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday). Do we keep the page for the previous Doctor? All character pages must be cleaned up and updated following this ruling.
 * 1) It's a story.
 * 2) Big Finish owns the rights to everything used within the story.
 * 3) It's been released officially.
 * 4) One statement has been found saying it was intended to be within Doctor Who's "canon". Strong statement, that. So far, no statements have been brought up to suggest anything to the contrary.