User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-86.178.203.198-20140629173408/@comment-188432-20140629192907

Well, I agree with Revan that the fact it's humorous is not, in itself, a reason to disqualify this work. But this book could well be parodic or non-narrative, in which case it would be disqualified.

But I think the jury is still out as to whether it's actually a narrative. And thing has to be a story for us to count it as a valid source for writing an article.

Part of the reason I'm using a lot of "ifs", is because it's released in the UK right now but not in the US, so I haven't read it yet. But the table of contents seems to suggest that it's mostly various early drafts of Shakespeare plays with the Doctor in those scripts. And that makes me highly suspicious.

The question really is whether the events happened to the Doctor and company, or whether they're fictional accounts that include fictionalised versions of the Doctor and company.

If definitely the former, then, fine, they're valid sources for articles on this wiki. If, however, they're fictionalised accounts, or merely Shakespeare scripts rewritten to include the Doctor and friends  — or even parodic — then they're not valid sources.