User blog comment:Kelis98/Should there be a Plothole page?/@comment-3967731-20160606015759

Let me say that you find yourself in good company. We dedicated fans have all noticed plotholes, inconsistencies, and outright contradictions as the series has progressed. Such is the fate of any long-running series handled by different groups of people.

I've previously raised concerns in my personal blogs Can "Burial at Sea" be counted as canon? and The Best &amp; Worst Things about Burial at Sea, both of which were the source of vigorous debate. In the end, most of the inconsistencies were found to be explainable, some of them stretched imagination/reason, and a small few proved untenable. What matters is that each additional game is here to stay, i.e. none of them (Burial at Sea, BioShock 2, etc.) can be disregarded despite contradictions pointed out by the fans.

With that in mind, we must ask ourselves, "What is the point of an Inconsistencies Page?" Are we pointing out lapses in the narrative created by BioShock? And are we listing these contradictions in order to offer possible explanations, to show where the designers slipped up, or for some other reason? Lastly, how does such a page fit in with all the other articles on the site. If it's a Blog, then okay, but does it work as an article?

As for your Canon page, I can't speak to the definitive reason why it was deleted, because I don't know, but it's possible that it was viewed as unnecessary. This Wiki has a policy against speculation and trivia, so it's possible that such a page was regarded as redundant since everything listed on the main articles (AKA, not the Talk, Blog, Forum, or User pages) is already "canon." The only exception is the materials concerning BioShock: Rapture (Novel), which has been discounted as non-canon by Ken Levine and thus is cordoned off by a special notice.