User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200505204802/@comment-27321963-20200505225143

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200505204802/@comment-27321963-20200505225143 I have already said that these stories deserve a place on this site regardless, Scrooge. This discussion is about their validity.

It is extremely clear that these stories were promoted on the BBC website to encourage new users to use the comic maker, whether they are valid or not that just goes without saying. The page that these stories were promoted would have been the first a new user visited, and would inspire them to make their own stories. This was the unarguable intent of the stories themselves.

Why does the fact that the BBC website promoted these stories make them "officially licensed"? My memory is foggy of the time, but I seem to recall that several fan-created pieces were also promoted as "comic of the week", etc. Does that then mean that these are valid articles?

Being direct sequels doesn't change the fact that these were made on the same site / using the same format as all of the fan creations, these were just promoted by the site. To say that promotion grants validity is ridiculous in my opinion, I have seen several official Doctor Who sites (lets take the official Doctor Who twitter page for example) raise awareness of fan-projects such as; stories and home-videos, does that mean that they are equally valid due to being promoted by the site?

Conclusion -

I think it is fairly reasonable to consider that the Comic Maker as a whole was licensed so that images from the main show could be used. Known writers were then asked to try out the site first, and their material was promoted on the main page to encourage newcomers. Not individually licensed, probably not even paid work - just writers using the service the same as any fan would, to create fan-fiction.