Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-25421326-20200308132630/@comment-45579415-20200428160337

I don't see anything problematic with this argument. Ultimately, it passes Rules 1-3 with no question and it straddles the line on Rule 4. Deeming it a valid source would allow numerous articles to be completed in a more coherent way. Going off of the rulings for the first three rules, the fact that it doesn't seem to exist as a parody or a pastiche --in my eyes --indicates it as a valid source for the wiki. It's just one of many parallels in the sea of hypertime.