User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-2.26.183.189-20170416191252/@comment-4028641-20170424152112

Danniesen wrote: Idk, it just doesn't seem to be valid in my eyes.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like the definition of a head-canon. We don't cover canon, and if our editors think something is canon isn't relevant to if we cover it.