The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House Baenre[edit]

Non-notable fictional group. Listing at AfD after an unsigned objection to ((prod)) on the article's talk page. This group has insufficient third-party references to support a sustainable, substantial Wikipedia article. Mikeblas (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruenor Battlehammer that links, in cascade-like fashion, to various other previous discussions and arguments just about invariably resulting in these articles being retained... and, just a li'l bit of precedent. In an attempt to stave off some comments from the less-than-fully informed, from WP:PRECEDENT: "Whilst consensus can change, there is a broad body of precedent which can be drawn on for regularly recurring consensus that have been upheld in a variety of situations." Nominations of this type are nothing if not "regularly recurring" events these days, so the principle certainly applies. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely in-universe record of a non-notable fictional group. - fchd 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very well written and accurate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.172.166 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Zahakiel above, and my doubts as to the true reason mentioned on the discussion page. --Geofferic (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As above, a very well written and accurate article based on books written for Dungeons and Dragons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceruam (talk • contribs) 19:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do quite see the point made above, but disagree. Without reliable sources, I see no evidence of meeting the minimum threshold of ((WP:FICT]]. Pastordavid (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zaha puts it well. As to sourcing, simply paraphrasing the primary source for this sort of article is acceptable as long as there is no OR or synthesis. Orphic (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.