User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45692830-20200723133026/@comment-6032121-20200723165640

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45692830-20200723133026/@comment-6032121-20200723165640 @User:WaltK, if we deem this book valid, then while these "silly" Doctors will technically have valid pages, don't forget it will all be wrapped in language along the lines of "The Sore Doctor was documented within a joke book in which the Doctor found herself trapped…". The framing narrative seems geared against us taking the more outrageous info in the book too seriously.

I agree that this should by all appearances be valid. It's true that we also care about the publisher's intent, but in the absence of statements to countermand the author's, surely we can assume the author, as a reasonable professional, isn't going against the wishes of their boss in making such statements. So if we're going by those statements, I think Rule 4 is a clear pass, and this should be valid.

As concerns Rule 1, it also seems to me like we shouldn't argue with the author if the author says "it's a story". But I also want to mention for the record that many jokes are actually narratives, anyway. Something like "The Doctor, the Brigadier and the Master walk into a bar; ‘What a lifelike doll you have there,’ the Brigadier asks, ‘where did you get it?’ ‘Right here,’ the Master answers, gesturing at the lack of a bartender."

- (not a real joke from Knock! Knock, for the record)

is clearly a story, even if, without a clear, explicit statement of "this takes place in the DWU", we wouldn't necessarily deem that it passes Rule 4.