Deletion of Vanillite, Vanillish, and Vanilluxe

Comment: Yes, there are lots of refs, but they're all junk.  I spot-checked the first six.  All of them are niche blogs (so, hardly qualify as |reliable source, and even then, only give passing reference to these characters.  {{U|Hobit}} calls out the HuffPo article as a particularly good source, so I took a look at that also.  In general, I would consider HuffPo to be a reliable source, but the article itself, again, only gives passing mention; they are cited by name once, in the last sentence of the 4th paragraph
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Passes  and coverage on these Pokémon is aplenty. |I do declare a minor interest
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:DCOI)

Comment: I agree that the one-word nomination is unhelpful, but while we're here and the discussion is stagnant and unfounded, there is no actual |significant coverage of these few Pokémon or any claim to their exceptionality apart from regular Pokémon coverage. Every single article used here is but a passing mention of the topic aggregated (Wikipedia:Bombardment|refbombed) to make it look like the character has coverage when it doesn't. Being mentioned a dozen times as a ridiculous idea for a Pokémon is not notability sufficient for its own article, though the most important blurbs can be merged into the list of Pokémon—this topic doesn't require anything more than that. As for the strong keeps above, I do not see what policy basis they stand upon. Mentioning the |general notability guideline without specifying what sources constitute sigcov is but a |vague wave. czar&nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG||WP:VAGUEWAVE)