Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Necromonger Way: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
09aidepikiw (talk | contribs)
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''delete'''. [[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

===[[The Necromonger Way]]===
===[[The Necromonger Way]]===
{{ns:0|F}}
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|F}}
:{{la|The Necromonger Way}}
:{{la|The Necromonger Way}}
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. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
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. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Line 13: Line 21:
::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. [[User:BishopTutu|BishopTutu]] 21:42, 4 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. [[User:BishopTutu|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). &ndash; [[User:Someguy0830|Someguy0830]] ([[User talk:Someguy0830|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Someguy0830|C]]) 08:04, 2 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). &ndash; [[User:Someguy0830|Someguy0830]] ([[User talk:Someguy0830|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Someguy0830|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." [[User:WMMartin|WMMartin]] 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:HoratioVitero|HoratioVitero]] 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:HoratioVitero|HoratioVitero]] 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:AfD is not a vote. Care to provide a reason for your opinion? [[User:Consequentially|Consequentially]] 05:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:AfD is not a vote. Care to provide a reason for your opinion? [[User:Consequentially|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. --[[User:Quirex|Quirex]] 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
*Carpet-chewingly annoying article. Inadequately referenced, overly verbose, and with a strong scent of OR. '''Delete'''. [[User:WMMartin|WMMartin]] 18:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 06:12, 9 February 2022