Deletion of Haunter

Comment: Yet another |IDONTLIKEIT. Why area large number of users confused about notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: If the nominator wants to have this article merged or redirected with consensus to List of generation I Pokémon instead of actually having it deleted, a merge proposal should have been made instead. No argument on whether it fails  and thus  was actually advanced, and no analysis or review of extent coverage is provided, only an opinion of whether the subject should be notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)

Comment: This article is sourced by reliable sources that indicate notability. The nom's comments that this subject has "no real-world notability" seems to be based upon subjective opinion, not policy; the sources and coverage in secondary sources establishes notability per  and . I also agree with the above comment that if a merge/redirect is being requested by the nom, that should be done via a merge proposal rather than AFD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: The sources are not sufficient to meet . Trivial mentions and Top X lists are not significant coverage
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: If you want to know why the nominator didn't make this a "merge" proposal, the above "keep" comments are why. I don't see a single source in this article that can be construed as |significant coverage. The character is either mentioned as a routine Pokemon or in trivial detail from puff press. A redirect would suffice. Feel free to merge anything else you deem appropriate
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)