Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Stockman


 * 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 keep. Notable fictional character with real life influence, featured in a few books. The plot summary still needs some trimming. PeaceNT (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Baxter Stockman

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This character establishes no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is an in-universe repetition of the plot of this characters appearances in various TMNT media. As the character is already covered in the articles on the actual media in the plot sections, this is just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion of notability. J- ſtan ContribsUser page 03:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fictional character with no notability or significance in the wider world. Fails WP:FICTION.  Lankiveil (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete for the reasons specified. But I reiterate my earlier proposal that we really should have a popular-culture Wiki that allows primary sourcing and has more liberal allowance for fair use. *** Crotalus *** 05:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I got some wikispam for The Annex on my talk page the other day, perhaps that would meet your needs? (note: I do not endorse or disendorse this external project). Lankiveil (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep he was a recurring character in the comics, games, both TV shows, and had action figures. I'm sure that the article is salvageable. JuJube (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there seems to be few (if any) reliable third-party sources. This was about the closest I found, but it mentions him only once, in passing. There are lots of Google hits, but they are mostly self-published websites that do not meet Wikipedia standards for sourcing. Again, this would be great on a fan-based Wiki, but it fails to meet referencing standards here. *** Crotalus *** 07:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is apparently a TMNT-focused Wiki on Wikia. Here is Stockman's page on that Wiki. Perhaps some of the material should be sent over there. *** Crotalus *** 07:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is a major and notable character in an incredbly notable franchise. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 08:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This apparently is a branch of a branch of a branch from the main article of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Seems cruel to ask editors to correctly find way to limit the size of an article by branching off sections then deleting them. Perhaps they could have done a better job but let's not punish them for trying. I see three books that cover the subject and will add them for future editor's use; I would think that DVD commentary or other routes of covering character development could also be found. Benjiboi 12:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - deleting articles is not "punishment" nor is it "cruel." Otto4711 (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case it seems to be. If it had been left in the article(s) from which it came it's unlikely it would be deleted. And deletion would seem to be a cruel punishment for helping a long article be more navigatible by breaking it into smaller parts. Benjiboi 15:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep 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 excessive plot summary, a fixable WP:PROBLEM 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. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no hint or proof of any real world notability thus far, which is the issue at hand, and all other article issues are irrelevant if that one isn't addressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- Hiding T 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeating a point made in a related afd. I was thinking, it had been mentioned in other tangentially related discussion, that we have articles on every species of animal,  and so we should have articles on all fictional characters, and you sort of nod and think, okay I see the point.  And then you think, okay, we have an article on the Flores Tiger, but would we have an article on the particular flowers it pollinates, by which I mean flowers x y and z which grow in meadow foo on the southern edge of the hamlet of a on the most Easterly island in Indonesia? Would we devote an entire article to the specific infrastructure of the wings of the butterfly, which one could do simply by studying a photograph of the butterfly and describing what one saw?  I assert we would not.  Therefore, should we do the same for fictional topics, basically, should we watch them and describe what we see, in ever decreasing circles of detail?  Where do we draw the line?  Is this something which needs to be merged back to the list from which it has sprung?  Yes, there is good faith in splitting it out, but there is also good faith in saying, we cannot delve to this level, we cannot simply create articles based solely on things we have seen.  That these things can be seen by a number of users is of no matter.  What next, a large number of article on particular images found on flickr? Hiding T 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Squidfryerchef. This has "real-world notability" (which is the same as "notability") by being an important character in a very notable franchise. Since his appearances span multiple media, it makes sense to organize the information in an article about the character. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, notable within an incredibly notable franchise as said above.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 03:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  If no independent sourcing exist then the content should be deleted, the fact that the article was a section of an other article that has been spun out is irrellevant because the content should not be kept there either.  Unless of course independent sources does exists.  "Real-world notability" is only relevant if it implies existence of independent sources.  Taemyr (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of this is easily sourced to primary sources (the media themselves), which are reliable per policy. Independence is a question for sources used to establish notability, not verifiability. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a problem here. Material based on primary sources must make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. Per WP:NOR.  At the same time WP:PLOT states that an article should be written to detail the real world impact of the sources. Taemyr (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no OR here. If anything this article could use more analysis of the character's role.  The real issue besides WP:N is WP:PLOT.  The article needs to be refactored so it explains who this half-fly mad scientist was, where he came from, how he became a fly, whether he's a good guy or bad guy, who his allies and enemies are, and so on.  There's probably some guideline about this in the comics department. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and then OR comes into play if we are only relying on primary sources. Taemyr (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If anything this article could use more analysis of the character's role. But that's precisely what we can't do, we can't analyse primary source. We can only make descriptive claims, per WP:NOR. Hiding T 10:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was being facetious about a little OR being helpful in rewriting the article. But, if somebody refactored this article into a biography format, using primary sources but only repeating descriptive claims, then that would eliminate WP:PLOT without violating WP:NOR.  The only remaining issue would be notability, which we're deciding for or against by consensus here. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How is only repeating descripting claims not a violation of WP:PLOT? In particular, how does purely descriptive claims adress the work's development, impact or historical significance. Taemyr (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was more concerned there with the article being nothing but a plot summary. What I had in mind, whether this meets PLOT or not, would be if the whole article was turned upside-down to explain, who, where from, what, why, etc, with the fiction as source, instead of what we have now, which is essentially "in the comic book" ( plot summary ), in the cartoon ( plot summary ), in the movie ( plot summary ).  This i'd hope would take care of PLOT, at least the part that isn't an overlap with Notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (Deindentint) If it is not in the comic book then it's improper use of primary sources, per WP:OR. Also, WP:PLOT calls for discussion on real world impact. Taemyr (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - 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 cleanup tag and fix the article. A lot of the discussion points for delete are eerily close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT 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. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We are agreed, the descriptive claims is no reason to delete, nor is it a violation or WP:OR. The problem is that WP:PLOT calls for desription of the real world impact of fiction, and this is impossible to proviode without violating WP:OR unless secondary sources is found.  That impossibility is the grounds for my delete vote.  Please note that my claim is not that the article as it stands violates WP:OR, my claim is that the article violates WP:PLOT and that WP:OR prevents fixing this.Taemyr (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's another angle we haven't looked at yet. If the character really was changed from African-American to Caucasian, some columnist must have written about it somewhere.  That kind of issue tends to attract media.  So then there might be a few secondary sources we could make use of. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, if secondary sources exists then my arguments is moot, but then we also have notability so there is really no concern. Taemyr (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - continuing character in multiple versions/series of a major franchise. The article's... a bit overlong, but that's fixable and isn't a reason to delete the article itself. --Zeborah (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the length of the article, the problem is lack of independent sources. Taemyr (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.