Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruenor Battlehammer
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
— User:Zahakiel, 22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:FICT||WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)