Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Necromonger Way

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Necromonger Way

The Necromonger Way (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Lengthy and unsourced article on a fictional topic; the Necromongers definitely feature as the principal villains in The Chronicles of Riddick, but the vast amount of detail which constitutes most of this article looks like fanfic, and I cannot find any reliable sources to back any of it up. If verifiable, reliable sources cannot be supplied for this, it should be deleted as per WP:V, or replaced by a stub. -- The Anome 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:V and WP:OR. Gives only 69 Google hits. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both this and Necromonger and then redirect the latter to The Chronicles of Riddick. Danny Lilithborne 20:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Google agrees with the nominator. Delete, per WP:OR or WP:FICT. Consequentially 03:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak merge and delete. Interesting trivia, but it should be in the root article for The Chronicles of Riddick, or even on a Riddick wiki or something. --Dennisthe2 05:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Most of this information on the "Necromonger Way" was found in the novelization, so it's true. Because it's true and in an official source, it needs to be kept.

BishopTutu 07:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Verification is only half of the battle. This article suffers under notability, and if you read WP:FICT it's pretty obvious that it doesn't match up with expectations. The fact that all of the sources come from the novelization only hurt the article so far as the WP:FICTION guidelines are concerned. It's developed entirely from in-universe fantasy, with nothing at all in the world of out-of-universe, real-world citation. Consequentially 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, forgive me for not being very educated in AfD votes, but you do make a good point, and if all possible, I'd vote for a (weak?) merge with The Chronicles of Riddick movie page instead of a keep; like I said, the information is true and found in a official source, but, yeah, most of it at this point in time is really unnecessary, though some of it would "flesh out" the story somewhat; either that or someone create a completely different article for The Chronicles of Riddick novelization containing this information. BishopTutu 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Even though I added most of the stuff in this article, I don't see any particular reason to keep it. It doesn't hold much relevance outside the film and the actual faith itself can be described rather suciciently (I do not know how to spell this word). – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean "succinctly", meaning "tersely" or "concisely". The adverb appears to great effect in the beloved Tom Swiftie "'But I always clean the bowl this way,' said Tom, succinctly." WMMartin 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep HoratioVitero 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. Care to provide a reason for your opinion? Consequentially 05:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no references and doesn't meet WP:V. Per each fact I have no clue where it comes from and it is full of assumptions like if ships use a fusion drive. --Quirex 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Carpet-chewingly annoying article. Inadequately referenced, overly verbose, and with a strong scent of OR. Delete. WMMartin 18:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.