Deletion of Baxter Stockman

Comment: That was painful, but this is a clear Keep. Just as Optimus Prime, Ravage (Transformers), and a slew of comic characters. I could see if it was one series, even, but the article clearly demonstrates that this character appeared through many incarnations, both TV and games. As far as the OR argument above, if (and I'm only saying IF) the article does make the analytical, etc. statements based on primary sources, that's '''not''' a reason to delete, it's a reason to add the {{tl|cleanup}} tag and fix the article. A lot of the discussion points for delete are eerily close to  and focus on the article's '''quality''' rather than the focus of the content. I don't like it much either, but |there's plenty of precedent for this type and kind of article, and the subject matter has a sufficiently wide range of visibility and thus notability. Keep should be an obvious choice on this one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:OSE)

Comment: this is a moderately important character in a very notable franchise, and this article appears to be created as a subsection of List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters to keep the length manageable.  While this article needs heavy trimming because of #PLOT|excessive plot summary, a fixable  is no reason to delete the article.  Neither is a lack of academic sources; this is an article about a cartoon character, we should be able to cite some of the better self-published sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:PROBLEM)

Comment: fictional character with no notability or significance in the wider world.  Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICTION)