User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-188432-20130514042227/@comment-188432-20130531120927

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-188432-20130514042227/@comment-188432-20130531120927 No, I've never complained about it being a soliloquy. I'm saying it's quite obviously an in-character advertisement. And you continue to grasp for a part of the policy that is not applicable to this situation. I've quoted, above, the entirety of the policy that is relevant to this discussion.

I'll quote again:
 * Sometimes you'll find a piece in a magazine written as if it's "real life" journalism about events in the DWU. Or you may encounter a game in an annual which sets up the puzzle using the Doctor or his companion. Or there may be information about a DWU character on the back of a playing card or in the packaging on a toy. None of this counts.

There is such a thing as being in-character but non-narrative. In-character advertisement is a common ploy of marketing, as I've demonstrated above with a number of industry and academic reports.

What you haven't explained is how we can allow this, but disallow the dozens of in-character advertisements otherwise associated with Doctor Who. You're arguing for this one thing and I'm worried about the precedent that this is setting. It's better to get rid of one thing that may be marginal, if it helps us weed out things that are clearly over the line, than it is to keep the thing that's debatable and thereby cast doubt on things that should be easily eliminated.