Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20191023230311

Found this debate for The Lucy Wilson Collection: School Children on Talk:The Lucy Wilson Collection: School Children:

(beginning of talk page discussion)

Wait, why’s this invalid? Which of the four little rules does it fail? – N8 ☎ 03:29, August 10, 2019 (UTC)
 * The tag was placed by user:Revanvolatrelundar back in December. My guess would be this was done because this looks a lot like a charity publication. That said, it only features original characters created and owned by Candy Jar and/or the writers involved, as far as I'm aware. So it's not an unlicensed work. And we do consider Death Is the Only Answer to be valid, by the Children of Oakley Junior School, and even Good as Gold, by the Children of Ashdene School. 04:22, August 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the status of this particular one, but remember that Thread:199045 and Thread:240280 saw the admins establish (though I don't personally agree with this decision) that there are stories that don't use any elements not owned by their authors, yet are still considered "charity works" by Tardis.


 * That being said, that is no excuse for this being invalid per se. Stories deemed pure charity works by Tardis aren't usually covered at all, Dimensions in Time (TV story) being the only counter-example of which I am aware, where the lack of proper licensing means we don't cover it, but we nevertheless have a page about it.


 * All that said it doesn't look much like a charity publication to me. It's not actually promoting any charity — nor are the profits from it given to one, because there aren't any: School Children was a free promotional giveaway — it just happens to have been written by kids, and have been released for free as a publicity stunt of sorts. Both situations are represented among stories which precedent deems valid (i.e. Death Is the Only Answer was written by children; and, of course, most every prequel, The Night of the Doctor included, was released for free on the Internet). So in the absence of evidence that this is a "charity publication" in any concrete sense, I see no argument against this anthology's validity.


 * Assuming we do continue to cover it (where as valid or as invalid), though, is there any reason the individual short stories shouldn't get pages? The titles aren't links (red or otherwise) at all at the moment. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  08:29, August 11, 2019 (UTC)


 * I unredlinked them (and just made up a new word) because I think caution is needed here when we have works written by school children. This probably needs a discussion on the forums so we can make sure everything is done correctly. Shambala108 ☎  12:02, August 11, 2019 (UTC)


 * I placed the tag because all the stories contained within aren't written to fit with continuity. From the top of my head some of the stories end with Lucy and Hobo shrunk or meeting certain doom. Certainly nothing that stands up as a credible story - they are written by school children, after all. --Revan\Talk 12:04, August 11, 2019 (UTC)

(end of talk page discussion)

A few notes:
 * I did some research on this one and couldn't find any indication (yes or no) whether it is a charity publication.
 * It was written by school children, but unlike the other stories cited above, we actually have the names of the children, so we should be careful how we create any pages for them.
 * I'm not sure I understand the reason given by User:Revanvolatrelundar for declaring this invalid. There seems to be some kind of issue with the narrative?

Anyway, I would welcome some input from anyone who knows anything about this collection. 