From Tolkien Gateway

I think the original article would be better than having the redirect, especially as the original article contained information that the article Sauron doesn't have. --Earendilyon 16:20, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Well really i think that where you have a name for any given thing (be it character, location, object or organisation) that refers to something that isnt significantly different to how it 'ended up' in the mythology it's better to have it as a redirect rather than leave all these scattered 'snippets' around with little detail or context. In the case of the Necromancer i didnt see anything in that article that wasnt already covered by the Sauron article.
I apologise for doing something so rash and i should, with retrospect, have posted something in the forum as to whether people agreed this was the best way to go. I shall do so now though.Unsigned comment by Dr Death (talk • contribs).

Merge with Sauron[edit]

We don't need multiple articles on one being.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  14:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--Morgan 16:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
+1, but should redirect to the Sauron#Third Age (or any future section about his necromancy) instead. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)