User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1506468-20190827123101/@comment-1432718-20190827132614

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1506468-20190827123101/@comment-1432718-20190827132614 For information sake, I am re-posting here User:Amorkuz' explanations for why the items in question were deleted. And for future reference, inclusion debates must take place here, not on article talk pages and not on user talk pages.

First, at User talk:Borisashton:

"Hi, thank you for your inquiry. You are quite right that a community discussion should have typically taken place. However, I would like to correct your timing. A community discussion should take place at Board:Inclusion_debates before stories are added to the wiki, not after. Granted, we do not discuss every story or series there. However, for stories from a new series and from a new source, which constitute a crossover with few individually owned elements of a non-licensed spin-off to Doctor Who and which shares no elements with Doctor Who proper, such discussion was quite pertinent. When LegoK9 wanted to add the story Death's Head: The Body in Question by a holder of Doctor Who license mentioning the Doctor and featuring an (non-sentient) character from Doctor Who Magazine, they did start an inclusion debate, but the story was ultimately deemed invalid (and not by me). Death's Head: The Body in Question is superior to the three stories from 10,000 Dawns in every Doctor Who respect, meaning that the latter would have most probably lost an inclusion debate on merits alone, even discounting the fact that they were posted on the author's online blog.

But, correct me if I somehow missed it, no such inclusion debate took place. Nor could I see any admin consulted on whether this was indeed such a open-and-shut case, on par with Series 12 (Doctor Who), that no inclusion debate was necessary. Without a community discussion in favour of inclusion, no such discussion need be held for deletion. And, unlike the inclusion, the decision to remove these stories from the wiki was taken jointly by three admin. I was simply assigned to implement this decision. Hope this clarifies things. Amorkuz ☎  07:36, August 27, 2019 (UTC)"

and at User talk:NateBumber:

"Thank you, Shambala108, for explaining the standard etiquette. Indeed, when you message somebody and they do not drop what they are doing to respond, perhaps, messaging them two more times may not achieve the results you hoped for. As another standard reminder, please recall that admin perform their duties for free on a voluntary basis and have other non-wiki-related obligations, such as jobs and families (not to mention the necessity to eat and sleep from time to time). I certainly did not appreciate your insistence.


 * As for the actual content of your inquiry, T:NOT states, "We are not a place to post fan fiction, information relating to fan fiction, or fan-produced titles of any kind." In particular, stories posted by someone on their blog here, here and here are not covered by this wiki. That this is a blog can be clearly determined from the word "blog" as part of the web address. I do hope that your personal involvement in at least one of these stories does not cloud your judgment regarding their status. Amorkuz ☎  07:15, August 27, 2019 (UTC)"

(Bold text added to make this post more readable)