Deletion of Bruenor Battlehammer

Comment: That assessment is incorrect on at least three points; a) It is not a stub, for, from  a stub is "an article containing only a few sentences of text...  ... Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they lack wikification or copy editing." b) A main character of a large number of hugely notable books cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered merely a stock character; it's obvious a heaping helping of  is coloring your vision here from the somewhat contemptuous tone you have employed. c) The notability guideline ''requires'' common sense in order to properly determine whether or not a character is presumed notable; it does not ''require'' the depth of sources you are culling from , particularly since a guideline can never trump a |policy.  If it seems I am repeating myself here, at least I'm not copying-and-pasting (yet
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stub (WP:STUB||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:FICT||WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: as this stub fails #PLOT. There are no |reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the |notability of this stock character. Call him Thorhammer, Battlehammer or Wolfhammer, fictional characters like this have no real world notability other than he gets +15 attack pointshttp://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4mspot/20071109
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:RS||WP:FICT)

Comment: What this boils down to is that you might benefit greatly from understanding the difference between  and .  There IS a difference; one of which is that the latter is an actual policy on this site.  In terms of the content of these two elements of our discussion (as I said in my previous chat with you about these matters) it's one thing to say, "Keep simply because article X exists," and quite another to say, "Keep, because the ''reasons'' article X was kept are also applicable here."  If you think that the pages I referenced were all - or mostly - retained through "no consensus" rather than "keep," then this points out the need for two things: a) Take an actual look at the pages I cite; you'll see a fair bit of straight keeps, and those that fall to "no consensus" do so only because of the tiny cadre of editors who ''always, invariably'' vote "delete" on this kind of material. b) If you aren't ''aware'' of the consensus for some bizzare reason, this might explain why you're so doggedly plowing through your
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX||WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT)

Comment: Per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rod_of_Seven_Parts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artemis Entreri, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mielikki_%28Forgotten_Realms%29 and a host of other places.  Current consensus on Wikipedia, upheld in countless AfDs, is that major characters (esp. the ''main'' characters) of tremendously notable works, which is exactly what we have here, are presumed notable per the "common sense" clause in the  and  guidelines - multiple, independent, secondary sources are simply one way of drawing that conclusion.  All this harping on  entirely ignores the need for actual consideration of the scope of the works under discussion.  Two or three nominators with a decided agenda consistently nominate the very articles that would best exemplify the need for looking at the big picture instead of wiki-lawyering, and then hold that the ones !voting "keep" and "merge" are ignoring policy.  I believe it's exactly the other way around, and the community at large seems to be in tune with that concept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:FICT||WP:N)