Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanillite, Vanillish, and Vanilluxe
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
— user:czar, 17:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG||WP:VAGUEWAVE (Wikipedia:Notability)