UESPWiki:Deletion Review

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

The deletion review is a discussion board for determining whether a page should be deleted or not. Articles are here for seven days, and depending on a rough consensus of the community, pages are then merged, redirected, kept, renamed, userfied, or deleted. Keep in mind that this is also the most complicated processes, and articles that are generally uncontroversial should be proposed on one of the two simpler processes: UESPWiki:Proposed Deletion or UESPWiki:Speedy Deletion.

The candidates for deletion can be found at Category:Deletion Review, and the active discussions about them can be found on the bottom of this page.

Voting on Discussions[edit]

Prior to giving your opinion on a discussion, please review the Deletion Review etiquette described below:

  • The debates held here are not concluded by plebiscite or poll. You should state your recommendations regarding the course of action to be taken and support them with an argument.
  • Always review the entire article prior to casting your vote, and do not rely solely on the points the nominator for deletion has brought forth.
  • Review the earlier comments and recommendations, as they contain relevant arguments and important information.
  • Begin your comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line, and sign them with four tildes (~~~~). When responding to another editor, place your comments below theirs and indent as necessary.
  • Editors should indicate their recommended course of action at the beginning of their statement and in bold text. For example, Keep or Delete. The word in bold should clearly state what your intentions are so that the administrator reviewing the discussion can quickly determine such. Some examples of words used to indicate a recommended course of action are as follows:
    • Keep – The article should remain undeleted.
    • Delete – That article should be deleted.
    • Neutral – You do not wish to vote at this time, but are simply giving input on the discussion.
    • Userfy – Instead of deletion, you wish for the page to be moved as a sub page to the creator's user page. (ex. User:Example/Userfied_Page)
    • Redirect – The page should be replaced by a redirect to another page.
    • Merge and redirect – All useful content should be moved onto another page, and the page should be turned into a redirect.
  • State whether or not you are one of the primary authors of the article, or if you created the original article.
  • Make only one recommendation to a discussion. If you change your mind at a later time, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The preferred method of doing this is to strike through your original comments using <s> and </s> tags, signature included, and adding your new opinion immediately afterwards. (ex. Keep Delete)

Nominating Pages[edit]

  1. On the input box below, replace the word "PAGENAME" with the article that you want to propose to deletion review, and click on the button.
  2. Edit the resulting page and fill in the nomination by following the instructions given.
  3. Place the template {{deletionreview}} on the top of the page that you just nominated.
  4. Edit this page, and add the following text above the most recent nomination, replacing "PAGENAME" with the name of the page you nominated
{{UESPWiki:Deletion Review/PAGENAME}}

Current Nominations[edit]

The current time is 16:54, 25 July 2021. Purge this page if the nominations haven't updated.


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  talkcontribs 17:59, 30 November 2019 (GMT)

Past Nominations[edit]

Past nominations can be found on this page.

Also, here are the links to past nominations, along with what the community consensus agreed upon. This list is sorted in alphabetical order, and includes multiple submissions when known.