UESPWiki:Deletion Review/Lore:Shezarrine

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.

Lore:Shezarrine

I am nominating this page per the talk page. It seems that the page is original research based on assumptions not reflected in the sources itself. After the objection of the proposed deletion there was no further discussion, so a deletion review might be in order. An overhaul, rename, redirect, or userfy might all be considered, but I don't think we can keep the page like it is now.

• Delete or Userfy: As nominator. --Ilaro (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2019 (GMT)
• Oppose: I don't see reasonable justification for deletion. The article is merely a badly written page on the subject, which is not reasonable justification for deletion. Mark the page for cleanup instead. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:33, 27 November 2019 (GMT)

• Comment: I sincerely ask of you if you could address the concerns as stated on the talk page. Why do you think we should treat this page different than any other original research? Or why do you think the only source for Shezarrine supports it being equivalent to an Avatar of Lorkhan? What should the cleanup accomplish? --Ilaro (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2019 (GMT)

• Comment:A further explanation is given in the source text Song of Pelinal. "he was Pelinal the Third, though whether this was because some said he was a god guiser, who had incarnated twice before already, or that, simpler, he was the third vision given to Perrif, anon Alessia, in her prayers of liberation before he walked among the quarters of rebellion, is unknown." The word itself is an explanation of the concept. Shezarr, with the suffix "ine". "Ine" is Greek for "Made of" or "of or pertaining to", meaning the word literally is "of or pertaining to Shezarr". This terminology is used in existing Tamrielic lore via "Nerevarine", "of or pertaining to Nerevar". The Nerevarine concept in-universe is used for a reincarnation of Nerevar. The concept is simply reused in Song of Pelinal. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:14, 27 November 2019 (GMT)

• Comment I won't divulge further after this comment as I don't think it's productive to continue, but our own guidelines state that what you're doing is exactly what falls within original research. Even if a series of statements can logically be put together to reach a conclusion, that conclusion does not belong on UESP unless it has already been stated elsewhere (in valid source material). (UESPWiki:Lore) --Ilaro (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2019 (GMT)

• Comment: And I do not see it as original research. Ignoring Shezarrine is drifting into a territory where we have to pretend the English language doesn't exist, and statements that clearly mean one thing have to be ignored because we did not get a dictionary definition confirming that the thing it meant was the thing it meant. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:36, 27 November 2019 (GMT)

• Userfy or Redirect: After reviewing the article again, I believe it would be more effort to clean up, and leave too little behind, to justify retaining it. The information pertaining to Lorkhan should move to his page. The term 'Shezarrine' being used in the method we have employed it is not justified in the lore. Yes, the term means "of/from Shezarr." But all of the following ideas become speculation: whether it is an avatar of Shezarr, whether it is a reincarnation, whether it is a hero sent by Shezarr, whether every individual acting related to Lorkhan can be identified as such. Even the plural 'Shezarrines' may not be appropriate. Thus, to have it as its own article and to be declared authoritatively in other articles is outside the boundaries of Original Research. I believe the optimum choice would be for Shezarrine to redirect to Pelinal Whitestrake, as the term is one that may yet be searched for by fans. Then, his page can describe the potential relation to Lorkhan, linking to that page where further speculation can be described. This page could be userfied for those that wish to see it preserved prior to the redirect. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2019 (GMT)

• Oppose: I feel like a cleanup would be the most appropriate action after reviewing the talk page discussion, the direction of this discussion, and the cited source material on the article in question. If there's enough question about the integrity of the lore itself, we can stricken lines that don't have a citation or a provable source, and if there is a source where our own interpretation can be up in the air, it's up to a discussion by the community to resolve the issue. As it stands, the term "Shezarrine" isn't made up, it exists in The Song of Pelinal, vol. 5.

A lot of notes about the Shezarrine are attributed to Pelinal Whitestrake and he's currently our most well-documented "Shezarrine". I can see the argument for redirecting this page to his page and moving information more about the broad concept to Lorkhan, as Hyrule suggested, but considering there is also lore suggesting there can be numerous reincarnations of the Shezarrine I see no problem with its own page describing the broad concept and attributes from noted Shezarrines that are of note, so long as we don't go so overboard that the page about the concept becomes redundant against pages like the Pelinal Whitestrake page. As long as we are careful and don't get too imaginative and "create" lore as there are concerns about, I see no problem with a short article describing the concept of the Shezarrine and a few characteristics of notable people believed to have been one. This is a topic that can be considered noteworthy to keep, it just needs polish and a little community discussion about what to clean up, rather than an out and out deletion. -damon  ^{talk ♥ contribs} 17:59, 30 November 2019 (GMT)

Consensus: Keep. Lack of consensus to delete. —⁠Legoless (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)