UESPWiki:Deletion Review/Oblivion:Roleplaying/Santa Claus

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Deletion Review discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Oblivion:Roleplaying/Santa Claus

I really just don't see the reason this page exists. I mean Santa Claus has nothing to do with anything remotely related to Elder Scrolls. I realize that we're usually very lax about Role playing articles, but for me, I see no reason to have this page. --Ratwar 01:06, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

• Support — I agree. This is completely useless and pointless, with no relevance at all to Elder Scrolls. --GuildKnight^Talk2me 01:16, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
  • If "no relevance at all to Elder Scrolls" is the yardstick we're using for deletion, then I'd like to bring attention to Oblivion:Roleplaying/Kira, a character from the anime Death Note]], Oblivion:Roleplaying/The_Doctor, from Doctor Who, Oblivion:Roleplaying/Lina_Inverse, a character from the anime Slayers, Lothario, a character from the fictional novel presented in Don Quixote, Oblivion:Roleplaying/Robin_Hood, and Oblivion:Roleplaying/Sith_Lord from Star Wars. Don't get me wrong, I think it's nutty that someone would want to roleplay a character from another franchise within an Elder Scrolls game, when the lore we're given is so thorough already, but really, to each their own, and it seems like there are far more serious offenders than Santa Claus. (In fact, of the above listed, I'd think a type of reverse-thief who sneaks into houses and delivers gifts to NPCs would be the least likely of these to get nominated for deletion.) --Kementari 02:19, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
    • At least Don Quixote and Robinhood have a medieval theme. If you feel the other ones should be deleted, you can nominate them (I thought it was a little much to start nominating a ton of articles, and I thought the Santa Claus one was especially bad.--Ratwar 02:56, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

• Oppose - Kementari beat me to it.... And besides, it's the Roleplaying article we're talking about. Vesna 02:40, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
  • I understand your position, but I don't really see now it being in the RolePlaying article makes up for its utter irrelevance. Heck, any article that expressively says 'we can't guaranty that it is any good' needs to be worked on and getting rid of one of the worst 'role playing stupidity' articles is a good start in my opinion.--Ratwar 02:56, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
    • I think Vesna may have been saying that the entire Roleplaying page is (or should be) under review for deletion. I wouldn't oppose that, honestly. This kind of thing is superfluous, people who are inclined to roleplay will do so for themselves. --Kementari 05:08, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
      • And as I said before, I want to see where people stand before nominating an article as big and with as many contributors as the role playing article. If the whole article should be deleted, so should part of it. -Ratwar 12:35, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
        • If we are going to do away with most (or even all) of the roleplaying article, I would support that. However, if we are just removing the ones that have no connection to the Elder Scrolls franchise, then I'd say keep them. That is where I stand. So depending on what exactly we're voting on deleting, I am either supporting or opposing. Vesna 15:59, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

• Oppose - As Kementari said, Roleplaying articles don't have to be explicitly TES related. Even the games themselves have easter eggs. When reading "Santa Claus", it reminded me of Bloodmoon's Uncle Sweetshare and Grandfather Frost. I think we should keep this article and the other mentioned articles aswell. - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 06:27, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

• Support - Personally, I've never liked the whole Roleplaying section, but in particular, articles that not only describe stuff completely unrelated to the games, and in many cases are not even possible, just seem pretty pointless to me. (I was looking at Oblivion:Roleplaying/The_Doctor just yesterday and thinking it reads pretty much like a mod request. Almost everything in it requires you to mod in new content. (At least I haven't seen a Tardis in Cyrodiil...) The few suggestions that don't basically amount to "Do good stuff" or "Do bad stuff", which is so vague that it could apply to just about anything. If it weren't such an unpopular suggestion, I'd say slash-and-burn the whole Roleplaying section. Most of it is utter tripe, and either A.)Makes no sense, B.)Cannot actually be done in the game, or C.)Is just another way of saying "Play the game normally". This whole section has consistantly been a trash-heap for the worst edits on this site, and it just keeps piling up. I think we've been overly lenient in allowing this to occur for so long... --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 08:59, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
  • I agree with Lurlock: our leniency with the Roleplaying pages sends the wrong message to new editors. My vote was referring only to this article, and it doesn't matter to me if there are more Roleplaying pages that are just as pointless, this one is pointless and useless nonetheless; but if we're gonna look at the whole of the Roleplaying articles, I'm game.  ;) --GuildKnight^Talk2me 14:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

• Support — I like the concept of role-playing, yet most pages in the category are severely lacking in originality, connection to lore and definition. If this is one is the first of many to go, so be it. Whack away!--Benould^•T•C 14:39, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

• Support - I support the page's removal if it means we're going to be getting rid of the Roleplaying stuff altogether. Creativity on a wiki is a fine line to walk; our Fanfiction and Fanart pages improve the wiki, but the Roleplaying page does it injustice. --Kementari 14:48, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

• Support - I think we need to get rid of most (if not all) of the roleplaying pages. The character suggestions are ridiculous, irrelevant, and are competely out of place on a wiki. If we decide to keep anything, it should be the general guidelines telling players how to create a good roleplaying setup. Then, the pages would definitely need to be redesigned and cleaned up or just deleted and then either made again or kept out of the wiki altogether. Although, since none of the roleplaying stuff really has a great deal to do with the elder scrolls, or contain any helpful information, I woudln't be opposed to deleting it all and just forgetting about it. If people want to roleplay, let them imagine it up. The wiki is about facts and information meant to help people play the game, not about telling people how to pretend to be a sith lord. - Dark Brother92 21:20, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

• Support - The Roleplaying articles seem unnecessary to me, and this one way more so. Erathoniel 22:21, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

• Support - I think the time has come to clean up the stain on the site that is the Roleplaying page. I'm supporting the deletion of all the roleplays, although I can just about support the retention of the Roleplaying page itself. The pages are almost all badly written, poorly thought out and (as Lurlock pointed out) generally impossible to play anyway. We don't tolerate such poor quality elsewhere - let's not tolerate it in this case either. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 02:57, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

• Consensus: Delete. Vote is 8-2 in favour of deletion. Furthermore, the objection raised by one opposing vote (and non-voter) is being addressed: other similar articles are also being reviewed for deletion.