Deletion of Bulbasaur (4th nomination)

Comment: Considering how many sources have been discussed and found, it definitely passes . Statements to the contrary are confusing and seem to take account for the personal opinion of the statement maker on a source over Wikipedia policy. Also, did someone seriously create a proxy to vote on a fictional character article's deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Other editors in this discussion have made it clear that ,  and  has not been taken into consideration
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:NEXIST||WP:ARTN)

Comment: Blatantly notable. The most basic of  searches (or just looking at the references already in the article) easily demonstrates this. Even as somebody who has never played a Pokémon game or watched the television programme this character is instantly recognisable as an icon of modern popular culture that has received extensive coverage from reliable independent sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Let's take Link's |three sources, which I believe demonstrate an important distinction: |significant coverage is whether we have enough quality material to write an article that does the topic justice without regressing to primary sources or original research; significant coverage is not simply invoking the topic's name in |the headline. These three sources are about Bulbasaur but say nothing—they offer no original analysis for us to cite in any depth
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:THREE||WP:SIGCOV||WP:HEADLINE)