Thread:Wagwan piffting23/@comment-30706862-20190908205203/@comment-37973629-20190908213744

One thing at a time, please. I’m going to deal with your first grievance for now.

When I said that the pages in question were “too insignificant for a page”, I meant it. All they did was play one poker game; no background info is known about them, only their names. The level of detail that we know about them would be comparable to any NPC poker player in RDR 2, such as “Henry”. You wouldn’t make a page for him though. Reason? Because no where near enough detail is known about him. If they only play poker once and do nothing else, they do NOT warrant a page.

You also referred to Wiki Policy in your message. However, I would argue that use of the “Ignore All Rules” policy is reasonable in this circumstance. It reads: “Use common sense first and then see if a policy applies to the situation in question“. In this situation, that’s exactly what I did; I used common sense and decided that the policy was not particularly suitable for the pages in question. Like I explained in the previous paragraph, there is sufficient rationale for these pages not having enough detail for pages in their own right.

You also compared the pages’ legitimacy to that of the Bradley Hunt page, and questioned why that was allowed and the others weren’t. My response would be this: Bradley Hunt was involved in some kind of gameplay-related, random event, and he also links to the Night Folk. Therefore, a page about him is in itself a page describing that particular event, and one that gives information about the Night Folk, which, considering how little is known about them, makes a page about him more relevant than a page about some random poker play who loses one game and is never seen again, with nothing known about him except for his name.

By all means, this is not the first time that something like this has happened. Various pages for insignificant characters have been deleted at various times, and today’s deletion of three irrelevant pages was no different. The Van der Linde gang members’ horses once had pages, but they were deleted earlier this year. I wasn’t too happy about it at the time, but I moved on. The reason why I bring them into this message is because a lot of the horses have more information to convey than the pages of the three poker-playing NPCs, including relationship with the rider, ultimate fate, what’s said about them, whether they’re rideable (Baylock) and many others. Case in point, pages for more significant roles in the game than the three no-background, never-to-be-seen-again poker players who are present for one game, have been deleted. If the pages that were deleted today have less of a role than pages that had been deleted in the past, then surely I was well within my rights to take such action.

As a final thing to say, the extent to which it was solely my decision to delete the pages is not absolute. User:Bigbat39 flagged one for deletion, indicating that he thought they were in need of deletion. After analysing the pages, I agreed with him entirely. This is not, in any way, me trying to blame him for the deletion, but simply me saying that the decision was not as undemocratic as you might imagine; an editor made a decision which I agreed with, and I took action accordingly.

I hope this satisfies your first complaint. It is late where I live and I would like to go to sleep, so I will address your second complaint another time. As a final note, the tone of your messages comes across as somewhat hostile. Please be careful of this.