Talk:Cacofiend

Wow, the speedy deletion is really SPEEDY! This page was deleted after I've expanded it a bit and was editing it more. I believe it did not deserve a Speedy delete in the moment it was deleted and that it is fine now, but you may do as you wish now. --Arny 03:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. It was actually deleted before I could do anything to prevent it, for God's sake!
 * Could you please explain why a computer game cheat is more notable than my small toe? Thanks. Harr o 5 03:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (Please not: Extreme tongue-in-cheek question, but I'm leaning toward an AfD atm)
 * Um... what? :) --Arny 04:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why does this cheat need an article? Harr o 5 06:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheat?? What are you talking about??? --Arny 07:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is important according to Importance criteria: 2. - it expands on the wide topic of Dungeons & Dragons (and also falls under the 2. reason why not to delete even if stub); 1. per the above mentioned topic; 3. I think my explanation should satisfy that. From the comments before, I can see that attacks on this page are based solely on ignorance, so please stop that. --Arny 07:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've rearranged the text so it might be more clear what this article is about. Sorry about the mess the first time, it's hard to write something informative when someone speedy-deletes the article in the middle of creation :P --Arny 07:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, since it seems the same spell in other games is called Cacodemon, and the only instance of it being named Cacofiend I am aware of is in BG2, it would be nice if anyone knows any other game where this name is used to add it to this page. Thanks. --Arny 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) --- This should be merged into Cacodemon, perhaps with a redirect from the Cacofiend page to the Cacodemon page. In the Cacodemon page, keep the mention of the alternate name, but there's no need for an extra page on an alternate name. LoneGamer 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen several people propose this to be merged to something. It should be decided to which this should be merged if so. There are several articles which would be likely candidates, all of which are linked from the article. Similarly to the above, I'm not sure where it does belong, so some advice would be helpful. Thanks. --Arny 10:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)