@FreeKnowledgeCreator: I confess that I'm pretty put out by this edit. Do you seriously believe that this article should be retained? Or perhaps you believe it should be merged elsewhere? If not, what precisely is gained by reverting me? I'm trying to find solutions (preferably that avoid AfD, which can lead to bad feeling) to the huge swathe of articles about fictional elements in the D&D universe that are generally well-put-together but cover subjects which lack any real-world notability. This article is just one of many. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- The main person responsible for the AFDs thinks he can be Wikipedia's one-man cleanup crew, and is not at all concerned about the bad feelings caused by his efforts. You might be able to limit which AFDs he starts by merging things before he gets to them, but that will only divert him onto looking for new things to delete. What he probably fails to realize is that given the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of similarly GNG-failing articles on fictional topics, he could easily spend the rest of his life on this and never get anywhere near all of them. But that's his problem, not mine. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- There are problems with these articles. AfD is one possible route to solving them, and it may work. Merging is another. Part of the reason AfD seems to popular is that it actually has results; on the other hand, I can try and merge something and be reverted with a vague request to seek "consensus", as here. This will probably now end up going to AfD, unless someone is willing to do some legwork. People on both "sides" here (the very fact I have to talk about "sides" is indicative of a problem) can be responsible for creating bad feeling and being unwilling to find solutions that work for everyone. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
