Deletion of Johnny Bravo (character)

Comment: as per above, as per these comments: "This article contains unencyclopedic entries, Absolutely nothing but in-universe plot summary and OR...I agree that it's completely original research...we don't need |personal interpretations of a children's cartoon show"I once again quote:  &  "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved."    Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:INTROTODELETE||WP:POTENTIAL)

Comment: Wholly constitutive of |uncited |plot descriptions and/or |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:PLOT||WP:OR)

Comment: without prejudice to a merge or redirect, which should be decided Talk:Johnny Bravo (character)|elsewhere. There is at least some sourced content here and redundancy is not a good reason to delete, see #Merging. Are people really unable to distinguish an article like this from meaningless gibberish like "23463wdfs ygxcbsdfgr52364 eryfgbdsfy3tewfdas a23qwrda"? Also, plain description of |primary source content (as opposed to subjective interpretation) is not original research, despite tortured claims to the contrary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:PRIMARY)