User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200905235227/@comment-6032121-20200905235512

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200905235227/@comment-6032121-20200905235512 …How is this an inclusion debate, exactly? Somebody asked a question. It was answered. And if anything it'd be an exclusion debate, the current state of affairs being thus-far-unquestioned validity.

Beyond that, I've said my piece: there is nothing obviously parodical in these stories, and in the absence of a statement from the authors which might show that it breaks Rule 4, I don't know why these could possibly be invalid. They're undoubtedly licensed, released, and stories.

I think the precedent set by Thread:177099 is fairly clear here, and I don't see why we have to open another lengthy debate just because some new users asked a question on the talk page due to being apparently unfamiliar with the finer points of our policy in this matter.