Deletion of Popplio

Comment: Definitely passes  with the sources found and the sources in the article. I do not get this deletion, if it meets , it meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: Nothing worth merging. Reviewing the  cited above: https://kotaku.com/plush-pokemon-should-not-be-80-and-make-me-cry-1790295835 Plush Pokémon Should Not Be $80 And Make Me Cry, https://www.nintendoworldreport.com/feature/42714/the-nwr-pokemon-sun-and-moon-starter-debate-the-case-for-popplio The NWR Pokemon Sun and Moon Starter Debate - The Case For Popplio, https://www.pastemagazine.com/games/the-power-of-helplessness-why-everybody-loves-mimi/ The Power of Helplessness: Why Everybody Loves Mimikyu and Hates Popplio are the epitome of hot take, unsubstantial soft news—none are suitable for general citation in an encyclopedia. If this is the best we've got, they underscore why these nominations should be uncontroversial redirects
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:THREE)

Comment: Sources are not particularly substantial. They're not really enough to meet  at this time
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: before this point the AfD was not transcluded on a daily log as per the |AfD process. I have transcluded it on today's log and it can be closed in seven days. The above comments must have come from people who saw the AfD template on the article or people who saw the notifications to the video games Wikiproject or the Article Rescue Squadron
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFDHOWTO)

Comment: per Haleth. Those sources do give significant coverage of the Pokémon, and I would say enough to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: or '''merge all''' of the article's contents to some other suitable destination - I have no idea who or what this character is, but even a brief  search shows significant coverage from reliable independent sources. I know that some people would prefer that Wikipedia editors dedicated their time to writing articles on serious subjects rather than articles about fictional cartoon animals, but  is not a valid reason to delete articles on subjects which pass . My lack of familiarity with the subject means that I don't know whether this would warrant its own article from a  perspective, but given the massive scope of Pokémon's popularity I find it quite easy to believe that most of its characters would at the very least warrant sizable sections within articles regarding closely related subjects in the franchise, if not their own standalone articles. There's simply too much coverage from reliable independent sources at this point
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG||WP:PAGEDECIDE)

Comment: to List of generation VII Pokémon#Popplio. The article in Kotaku about plushie doesn't seem very relevant. https://www.techradar.com/sg/news/gaming/popplio-continues-pokemon-s-tradition-of-the-unlucky-number-three-1321344 This doesn't seem very in depth, it's a bloggish rant about some Pokemon design the article's author doesn't like, and doesn't even focus on Popplio that much - it rants about several designs. How does this type of coverage help us? Minor Internet-era author ranted at a minor outlet in passing about this entity? Ugh. https://www.nintendoworldreport.com/feature/42714/the-nwr-pokemon-sun-and-moon-starter-debate-the-case-for-popplio Is the same but even more niche of an outlet (this time the author seems to like the design?). https://www.pastemagazine.com/games/the-power-of-helplessness-why-everybody-loves-mimi/ And this is more like the first one but better written. Ok, it seems a few people commented about his design, but I am not convinced the source quality is enough here and I'd recommend merge, while preserving the better part of the reception. All that said, this is better than most other Pokemons which get nothing but how to game-related guides, but frankly, to make this notable, I'd want to see coverage that goes beyond few ranting fans who managed to get few bucks for getting their hack writing published on a niche gaming portal. If the controversy about its design or the design itself gets written up by mainstream media or academics, then I'd vote keep. For now, I think this doesn't meet . With the proliferation of low quality online commentary about virtually anything, a few low quality rants should not be enough to meet GNG. PS. I read the discussion above now and it seems I am echoing
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: With such insightful commentary as "Megan Farokhmanesh of The Verge described Popplio as "very ugly"", it surely examines Popplio's impact on society. Not. This does not demonstrate any notability beyond the very trivial observations of a few critics, and fails 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as compromise to deletion. The  tells us that "mentions" are not enough, as per . It's frustrating to see editors actively cheering for a lack of consensus. Wikipedia is not a  and the whole project is built on our ability to form  and find common ground. Merging allows us to preserve what little valid content there is here, and potentially expand it if coverage should ever change due to new events. No consensus just guarantees that these disputes will continue across multiple AFDs
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS||WP:BATTLEGROUND||WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: to  List of generation VII Pokémon#Popplio - Despite the copious amount of sources of vastly varying quality that were ed in the Reception section, the actual content of those sources pretty much consists of the information that "Some people didn't like the design and some people did".  That single piece of information can easily be included in the main list of Pokemon for that generation, and does not require an entire article to be split out from it, per 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:REFBOMB||WP:NOPAGE)

Comment: I feel like every Pokemon article was scrutinized too much, but per  and , clearly notable. Special:Contributions/90.252.172.138|90.252.172.138
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:NEXIST)