Talk:Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time (comic story)

Invalid?
Why was this considered invalid? 07:19, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Why isn't this considered invalid? 09:56, October 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * In the light of the glorious in-universe Doctor Who multi-media franchise, this should be valid. 📯 📂 00:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Should it? Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Just because Doctor Who exists in-universe does not mean every story about Doctor Who is automatically valid, it just goes to show that having Doctor Who existing within the Doctor's world is not a surefire indicator of a Rule 4 break.
 * This story could still fail Rule 4 regardless. And as an inclusion debate ruled it invalid, another thread would be necessary to change that ruling, although the "Doctor Who does in fact exist in-universe within a flurry of other valid sources" factoid does constitute "new evidence" on which such a thread may be opened. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  01:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the Fourth Doctor himself appears, and while he's partially there to provide a sort of meta-fictional commentary, it's no more ludicrous than something like Bafflement and Devotion. In fact, both Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time and Bafflement and Devotion are remarkably similar, with the author of the piece writing themselves into the narrative and interacting with Doctor Who characters who discuss the Doctor Who series about themselves. 📯 📂 01:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong. But this is something that needs an inclusion debate, by procedure, I'm sorry. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  01:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I know this will need an inclusion debate, but the purpose of what I just said was to prove that this passes rule 4, which you also just mentioned. 📯 📂 01:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)