Deletion of Whismur

Comment: no |reliable sources (just a list of fan sites), no evidence of any real notability.  Yes, I'm a aware of , but it's high time that flawed bit of circular reasoning was laid to rest
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:POKEMON)

Comment: while I don't have a strong feeling about this article per se, I feel that the nominator and nomination have been treated unfairly by many !voters. I have recently seen many AfD's where there were complaints because the nominator had created a mass nomination (nominating multiple related articles at the same time). Now, people are complaining because the nominator has ''not'' created a mass nomination. This is unfair, and does not reflect the nomination. This nomination is not a call to delete Whismur and keep all other Pokémons, but a call to delete Whismur, full stop. After this AfD, and depending on the comments and the result, every editor can choose to nominate other articles and/or merge them. Another comment is that it is not right to nominate an article for deletion because it only has in-universe references (only references in the show, card game, ...). However, this is a perfect argument for deletion. If no one had ever written anything out-of-universe about Rhett Butler (a terribly unsourced article for the moment) or Tintin and Snowy (a much better example), it would be perfectly allright to delete these articles, since the only sources then would be primary sources, making Wikipedia a secondary source, when it has to be a tertiary source. Every article that fails , no matter if it is about something obscure of about a detail of a well-known subject, is a fair candidate for deletion. Now, a good argument to keep this article anyway is to point to the available secondary sources (books, articles ''about'' Pokémon: not game manuals and so on though, those are still primary sources), of which there are a few listed. Since I am unable to judge if these books fit the  criteria (independent? reliable?), I am in no position to decide if this AfD should get a ''delete'' or a ''weak keep'', but I still wanted to comment on the many people unjustly targeting the nomination instead of targeting the subkect and its merits and faults, as an AfD discussion should do
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:V)