Deletion of Bulbasaur (3rd nomination)

Comment: Clearly not ready to be an article"? Yes, being built in 2007 clearly is yesterday and the iVote Delete above is another example of |I don't like it and want to delete it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDL)

Comment: passes the |general notability guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: after this much time we should admit there are no appropriate sources to . (Only primary sources, game guides, instruction manuals or quotes that verify bare existence.) No one has been able to fix this article to meet Wikipedia standards. To quote , ''"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY||WP:V)

Comment: Since this article was first nominated, many more  have been provided which clearly establish notability. Although many of the sources aren't independent, they are considered reliable for providing information; there are enough independent sources to establish notability. --Special:Contributions/138.110.206.150|138.110.206.150
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The issue is essentially one of Wikipedia:Content forking|forking.  The nomination asserts that this is a passé fad, as if this were either true or relevant, but does not actually want us to remove Bulbasaur content from Wikipedia.  Instead, the content is to be contained in the article List of Pokémon (1–20).  The latter seems an entirely |synthetic creation of Wikipedia editors &mdash; this grouping is not supported by any reliable source and so it is tagged as requiring reliable sources.  Bulbasaur is an especially notable Pokemon, as it is prominent in the game and other media.  Putting together notable Pokemon with less notable Pokemon to make arbitrary anthologies or compilations, seems quite improper.  This list in question has not reached featured status, as the Bulbasaur article did, and has itself been nominated for deletion more than once.  So, removing a featured article to bolster a dubious and inferior list seems quite absurd and we should build upon the stronger foundation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: This is a well-referenced, well-written, and well-developed article, with numerous reliable sources for each of the sections that deal with real-world information, namely Development and Reception, making it pass  by several kilometers. Those editors who insist that only delete arguments are according to policy are, to assume good faith, going by an older state of the article. Arguments that it's time to "put a stake through" this are not arguments made in good faith, but based on emotions left over from prior arguments
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: and '''protect'''- does not pass the |general notability guideline in its own right, but is a very plausible search term
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and  as this is the third AfD nomination and burden of delete, redirect or merge has not been proven. Bulbasaur is one of the main Pokemon characters and the article has sufficient |reliable sources to establish notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:OVERZEALOUS||WP:RS)