1160:(i.e., Bulbasaur), cited as, "Polygon described Bulbasaur on Detective Pikachu as “unassuming and sweet,” a creature who makes a “lovable friend.” Again, what content are we meant to cite here to write an article that does justice to the independently notable depth of the topic? There's nothing beyond in-universe impact: That the character's portrayal made her reconsider her bias between starter Pokemon preferences has only incidental and no material impact on the Reception of the character. And that's a generous analysis because the article absolutely did not put it that way.
486:- As much as I've generally supported the paring down of many of these individual Pokémon articles, this ones going too far. There's a lot of crap to trim out of the reception article (or to streamline at least.) But this ones an iconic character from a long-running series. I refuse to believe that there's not a handful of sources in existence. I'll do some digging if pressed, but this feels right up there with the platinum selling song article nominations because an editor couldn't find a handful of sources online - they're generally snow-kept before the digging even begins.
349:: It's listed as the very first Pokemon, in the first generation of games - so I think that it is particularly notable. It's my opinion that all Gen 1 starters at least should have their own page, or at least a merged page for all three. Regardless, like you said, there's a lot of trivial information around these pages and some clean-up clearly needs to be done.
469:- There's definitely a horrible amount of trash in the reception section, but this feels like something that should probably go through discussion analyzing which sources to remove and which sources to keep. After it has been trimmed down to at least acceptable content, then deciding whether the remaining sources are sufficient would be a good idea.
785:
The first article of the three is the only one you can truly, IMO, argue that it is significant coverage. The second is more of a humor piece "arguing" that
Bulbasaur is the best Pokemon because the author says so. The third is more about the @Bulbaganda Twitter feed than about Bulbasaur itself. Just
1167:
Because this is the best depth of coverage we've got, we're left with text that cobbles together numerous fluffy statements, each imparting little to nothing about the character or its significance. Which is why I'll once again say that if all sources really have to say is that sources say
Bulbasaur
1026:
You are conflating AfD with "hating" something, which is quite not the case. I can like something and still think that the article on it is poor quality and maybe should not exist on
Knowledge (XXG). After all, Bulbapedia does an excellent job, far better than Knowledge (XXG) could hope to do on the
675:
Im not exactly sure what hair you're trying split here. What exactly is the difference between "mascot character for FIFA" and "characters alongside with mascot character". Like, what exactly do you see mascot characters and characters along for the ride being different in the scale of an event like
580:
I'm well aware of the process, I've been involved in it for over a decade. You're misunderstanding me. If it's a close call, I'll gladly change my tune and do some sourcehunting to persuade people to save the article. I'm just saying I'm not working on saving an article that isn't in any real danger
770:
I have given this some thought, and am changing my Weak Keep to Keep. I agree with
Sergecross73 and (Oinkers42). As for Czar, since there currently is no SNG for fiction (which there should be IMO), the only standard to go by is GNG, which doesn't have anything requiring how the sources cover it at
1084:
The first 2 AfD noms, from the early decade of
Knowledge (XXG), were clearly malformed or badly made/closed which has no instructive value on the subject's notability. The 3rd one was contentious, but the closer made it clear that deletion was never a viable outcome from that discussion and that a
1519:
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
1497:
I agree that Link's and Serge's sourcing are sufficient to meet GNG. These types of articles are going to mainly be sourced by primary sources (the games or interviews), because they are the most authoritative source for fictional subjects. The sources used for notability sometimes can be sort of
418:
A recently developed consensus in the AfD's for
Pokemon characters indicate that many editors are not in favour of keeping standalone articles which discuss two or more Pokemon which are either interconnected as co-mascots of a particular generation or as an aggregated evolutionary line. The sole
1152:
as "Kotaku recommended to people who don't like
Bulbasaur and their propaganda might check out twitter @BulbaGanda for arts, memes, and images to change mind", which again is a great summary of the article and additionally an excellent indicator of content that does not belong in an encyclopedia
876:
The original starter
Pokemon are by far my favorite in the series, so it's absolutely not an issue of IDONTLIKEIT. I don't understand what's such a sin about wanting articles about things you like to actually be a quality article. And that goes hand in hand with passing GNG and being able to get
812:
I never said anything about Pokédex numbering, because I agree it has nothing to do with notability. I guess you are right about the third source but I disagree on the second. It is from a reliable source, and it does give in-depth coverage. Just because it has a less serious tone doesn't change
624:
No, I'm not saying that either. If you're going to do such a terrible job trying to paraphrase my stance, don't bother. I'm saying your nomination is so bad that I don't feel it will require extensive source hunting to save it. It lacks common sense. To think that a globally known character that
437:
I think people are demanding that every
Pokemon in those combined articles be able to stand alone as notable. That is very much not the case for Abra, Kadabra and Alakazam, and similarly Ivysaur isn't notable either. (I heavily doubt Venusaur is either, the reception section is barely-there).
831:
Like, I can get a humorous article that also actually puts forth an indepth analysis, but this article makes no attempt to, instead joking about how various things that are weaker about
Bulbasaur are actually the creators' attempts at giving you philosophical life-lessons.
919:
I'd probably enjoy the article as an amusing diversion if I was stumbling upon it while reading the webpage. In a "yeah, seriously, why IS Bulbasaur so underrated"? kind of way. But as a source of serious criticism, used in this context, I think it doesn't pass muster.
1045:
Also, you can tell from the 3 previous nom's of Bulbasaur that the notability has been an issue in the past. In the previous nomination, largely unreliable sources were used to justify keeping it, of the sort that wouldn't be typically used on Knowledge (XXG) today
597:
Then you are admitting that your "keep" vote has no basis in evidence? Why even put forth the vote, then? If I had a hunch something was notable and wasn't sure, I'd usually leave a comment instead, but not put my full weight behind a keep vote with no proof.
276:
There are several articles from gaming sites about Bulbasaur, but they are largely meme-y and more humorous in nature than attempting to dive deep into the Pokemon's design and creation. "Bulbasaur is pretty cool! He does stuff like Vine Whip! Underrated!"
1431:. Statements to the contrary are confusing and seem to take account for the personal opinion of the statement maker on a source over Knowledge (XXG) policy. Also, did someone seriously create a proxy to vote on a fictional character article's deletion?
532:
Yes, I acknowledged the refbombing, I just don't believe your claim that a cleanup effort would whittle it down to nothing. And I'm not wasting my time looking for sourcehunting for a misguided nomination that's heading for an obvious keep result.
1220:
for companies as a defining element of significant coverage. We can certainly argue for its inclusion as a requirement for a proposed SNG which specifically covers fictional characters and topics, but until then, it is opinion only.
1145:, blog posts about "why a fictional character is 'the best'" have a bad track record for having any meaningful insight worthy of an encyclopedia. The article is jokey and unserious and I hope I don't need to quote it to show why.
1465:
for the same reasons I listed last time this was at AFD. This was a former featured article, linked to on the main page of the Knowledge (XXG). The Reception and legacy section of the article, shows it gets ample coverage.
1316:
I agree that people are stretching the definition of listicles to an absurd degree. Listicle is a term to denote an article that is not about the subject about which the source is being used to establish notability. -
1125:
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
1300:. Very different. I don't agree with yours or Czar's hand-waving away of these lengthy sources dedicated entirely to the subjects. You're setting the bar too high. There's enough here to write a short article.
553:
is on people to prove it's notable, not on the AfD nominator to prove it isn't. You are misunderstanding the process. No matter how "misguided" it is, people must still present evidence it's clearly notable.
238:
1153:
article. It is a Reddit post masquerading as a news article, offering no analysis beyond "look at these funny memes". There is no additional content here to explain anything about the Reception of Bulbasaur.
100:
105:
95:
90:
85:
298:
647:
Pikachu has been named Japan’s official mascot for the 2014 World Cup, and will be accompanied by several other notable Pokemon, including Charmander, Bulbasaur, Squirtle, Chespin, and more.
1194:- I think it would be useful to define "meaningful analytic substance" here. Do they have to have a personality or character arc to analyze, discounting obvious exceptions of mascots like
273:
and does not demonstrate standalone notability. Standards have clearly changed dramatically from when it was a Featured Article, but right now it's essentially pure Wikia/FANDOM material.
710:
269:
As with other recent Pokemon articles nominated for deletion, the Reception section of Bulbasaur is almost entirely trivial coverage from listicles regurgitated as minor quotes. It fails
1141:
about the legacy of Pokemon Red/Blue, as "Chris Plante of Polygon chose Bulbasaur as the best Pokemon all along" because that's all the article says in its 13 paragraphs. Similar to
322:
629:
isn't going to have a handful of write ups about it is ludicrous. Exceeding bad judgment call on this one, all around. And the current trajectory of the discussion shows it.
199:
649:
Bulbasaur was just one of the numerous side characters with Pikachu being the actual mascot. And this isn't a debate about how notable Pikachu is, since it obviously is.
1380:
Meets GNG as noted above, article could to with rewriting however. Considering how old the character is a lot of the detailed coverage will be buried in old magazines.
990:
As I stated above, it's not an IDONTLIKEIT issue. Quite the opposite, actually. Besides, ad hominem arguments don't hold any weight when there is no evidence as such.
232:
131:
1498:
shoved into the article, and that's fine. The important part is that they show that Bulbasaur is an iconic character that has the notability for an article.
829:"If Bulbasaur is a 10/10, every other Pokémon is a solid 9.9/10. Except Exeggcute. A more appropriate name for Exeggcute would be Knockoff R.L. Stine Cover."
1275:
80:
146:
901:
Since it appears my comment is being misinterpreted below, I will clarify. I was referring to you and the source, not the Pokémon itself. For the record,
506:
ing in order to make itself seem more notable than it really is. When one tries to find the actual sources they are mostly left wanting for any depth.
955:
While Knowledge (XXG) should probably not become a Pokedex covering Pokemon that have iconic status outside of the franchise seems entirely valid.
1358:
827:
There is no real argument in the 2nd article. It's literally just goofy humor and makes no sense to put forward as evidence of notability.
1274:
As per what CZAR said earlier, a listicle like that does not demonstrate any depth of coverage. Most of the entries within it are simply
1278:
about the anime or video games. One could write a similar article about any of the starters - or heck, any of the original 151 Pokemon.
786:
because a Pokemon is numbered #1 in the Pokedex does not imply immediate notability, Pikachu is #25 so number really means very little.
1138:
502:"I believe it's iconic" can apply to most Gen 1 Pokemon. Iconic does not necessarily mean notable, however. The article utilizes heavy
1168:
is iconic as a starter Pokemon and is cute, we can just as easily express the same content more eloquently with a single sentence and
126:
119:
17:
420:
1113:
1157:
747:
388:
was the first Pokemon ever designed, #112. We don't have an article for Rhydon. The Pokedex number pretty much means nothing.
1134:
751:
140:
136:
1529:
1507:
1489:
1457:
1440:
1419:
1390:
1372:
1326:
1311:
1291:
1269:
1230:
1207:
1184:
1094:
1059:
1040:
1021:
1003:
985:
964:
933:
914:
890:
871:
845:
822:
799:
780:
722:
687:
662:
640:
611:
592:
567:
544:
519:
497:
478:
451:
432:
401:
379:
358:
338:
314:
290:
64:
172:
167:
253:
176:
1546:
1130:. These three sources are about Bulbasaur but say nothing—they offer no original analysis for us to cite in any depth.
40:
1525:
1149:
755:
220:
626:
1216:
There certainly isn't a guideline requirement under WP:GNG for "meaningful analytic substance" or anything akin to
1017:
981:
159:
743:
739:
385:
1350:
973:
859:
645:
That very much seems like picking and choosing what you want people to hear. According to the actual article:
1349:, there's more coverage you'll see about Bulbasaur, not all of them are trivial. It seems like this case is
375:
354:
1013:
977:
214:
1521:
1306:
1264:
682:
635:
587:
539:
492:
1542:
1436:
1203:
36:
1217:
1169:
1127:
210:
1342:
503:
1388:
676:
this? The operative word wasn't "mascot", it was "involvement with a major global sporting event".
246:
1516:
1403:
1399:
1354:
1346:
1255:
1173:
1122:
550:
1503:
1368:
910:
867:
818:
776:
763:
718:
371:
350:
260:
1118:
1176:
means not just being "about" the subject but having meaningful analytic substance we can cite.
1301:
1285:
1259:
1053:
1034:
997:
927:
884:
839:
793:
677:
656:
630:
605:
582:
561:
534:
513:
487:
445:
395:
332:
308:
284:
115:
58:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1541:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1407:
1142:
53:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1467:
1453:
1432:
1415:
1322:
1226:
1199:
1090:
428:
1428:
1251:
270:
1381:
1178:
960:
384:
Being #1 in the Pokedex does not mean it's one of the first Pokemon created. Actually,
226:
163:
1012:
If original starters were your favorite, you would not have listed Bulbasaur for AfD.
1499:
1364:
906:
863:
814:
772:
759:
714:
474:
1427:- Considering how many sources have been discussed and found, it definitely passes
1281:
1049:
1030:
993:
923:
880:
835:
789:
652:
601:
557:
509:
441:
391:
328:
304:
280:
1247:
193:
738:
While the article does have a lot of listicles and all the Keep !votes above are
1449:
1411:
1318:
1222:
1198:? Is this an inherent problem with all fictional species articles in your eyes?
1086:
1027:
subject, so it's not like it's eradicating Pokemon from the face of the planet.
424:
858:
Is there anything that states it must have an argument? This is sounding like
1250:
which was just very recently deemed reliable for entertainment subjects per
956:
155:
70:
1150:
If You Don't Love Bulbasaur, 'Bulbasaur Propaganda' Might Change Your Mind
470:
367:
1195:
366:: I will chip in that I don't see the point in a separate article for
1448:. I believe that sourcing is sufficient, if not severely outdated. -
902:
423:, appears to be on the verge of being restructured to just Kadabra.
1085:
merge and redirect proposal may have more weight as a consensus.
1537:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1121:
sources, which I believe demonstrate an important distinction:
905:
is one of my favorite Pokémon and I tagged it with notability.
1246:- In less than a minute, I found a pretty lengthy source at
1398:
Other editors in this discussion have made it clear that
1158:
Detective Pikachu helped me love a Pokémon I used to hate
299:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
189:
185:
181:
245:
1298:
every single entry on the listicle is about Bulbasaur
711:
list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions
1143:
why we don't use listicles to signal noteworthiness
259:
101:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur Mansion Characters
106:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur evolutionary line
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1549:). No further edits should be made to this page.
709:Note: This discussion has been included in the
323:list of Video games-related deletion discussions
321:Note: This discussion has been included in the
297:Note: This discussion has been included in the
96:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (4th nomination)
91:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (3rd nomination)
86:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (2nd nomination)
1248:https://screenrant.com/pokemon-bulbasaur-facts/
1135:Bulbasaur has been the best Pokémon all along
8:
627:was once named one of the mascots of FIFA 14
147:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1343:Is this an out-of-season April's Fool joke?
708:
320:
296:
1515:- Blatantly notable. The most basic of
1410:has not been taken into consideration.
78:
1114:List of generation I Pokémon#Bulbasaur
1296:This is not just a "listicle entry",
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1520:from reliable independent sources.
758:) do give it significant coverage.
419:remaining article of that nature,
24:
132:Introduction to deletion process
81:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur
771:all, just that they cover it.
1:
766:) 15:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
421:Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam
122:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1566:
1530:07:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
1450:Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa
1353:, and people are ignoring
1319:Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa
1254:so I'm really having some
65:07:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
1508:00:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
1490:23:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
1458:22:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
1441:18:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
1420:02:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
1391:22:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
1373:00:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
1361:00:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
1327:22:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
1312:20:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
1292:20:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
1270:20:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
1231:02:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
1208:20:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
1185:19:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
1172:within the list article.
1095:02:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
1060:19:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
1041:19:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
1022:19:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
1004:19:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
986:19:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
965:19:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
934:19:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
915:19:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
891:19:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
877:substantive information.
872:18:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
846:17:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
823:16:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
800:16:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
781:10:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
723:15:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
688:20:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
663:20:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
641:20:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
612:19:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
593:18:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
568:17:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
545:17:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
520:16:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
498:12:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
479:12:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
452:07:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
433:02:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
402:16:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
380:13:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
359:12:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
339:06:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
315:06:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
291:06:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
1539:Please do not modify it.
746:, these three articles (
32:Please do not modify it.
76:AfDs for this article:
1137:, one of a series of
120:Articles for deletion
1174:Significant coverage
1123:significant coverage
1117:. Let's take Link's
56:keep Best Wishes,
1522:HumanBodyPiloter5
1506:
1289:
1258:concerns here...
1057:
1038:
1001:
972:This smells like
931:
888:
843:
797:
725:
660:
609:
565:
517:
449:
399:
341:
336:
317:
312:
288:
137:Guide to deletion
127:How to contribute
1557:
1502:
1486:
1483:
1480:
1477:
1474:
1471:
1386:
1309:
1304:
1280:
1267:
1262:
1183:
1181:
1048:
1029:
1014:Leanne Sepulveda
992:
978:Leanne Sepulveda
922:
879:
834:
788:
685:
680:
651:
638:
633:
600:
590:
585:
556:
542:
537:
508:
495:
490:
440:
390:
327:
303:
279:
264:
263:
249:
197:
179:
117:
61:
34:
1565:
1564:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1547:deletion review
1484:
1481:
1478:
1475:
1472:
1469:
1382:
1363:Blocked proxy.
1307:
1302:
1290:
1265:
1260:
1179:
1177:
1058:
1039:
1002:
932:
889:
844:
798:
744:WP:ITSIMPORTANT
740:WP:SOURCESEXIST
683:
678:
661:
636:
631:
610:
588:
583:
581:to begin with.
566:
540:
535:
518:
493:
488:
450:
400:
337:
313:
289:
206:
170:
154:
151:
114:
111:
110:
74:
59:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1563:
1561:
1552:
1551:
1533:
1532:
1510:
1492:
1460:
1443:
1422:
1393:
1375:
1351:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1279:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1211:
1210:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1154:
1146:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1047:
1028:
1007:
1006:
991:
974:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
967:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
921:
896:
895:
894:
893:
878:
860:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
851:
850:
849:
848:
833:
805:
804:
803:
802:
787:
727:
726:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
668:
667:
666:
665:
650:
617:
616:
615:
614:
599:
573:
572:
571:
570:
555:
525:
524:
523:
522:
507:
481:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
439:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
389:
343:
342:
326:
318:
302:
278:
267:
266:
203:
150:
149:
144:
134:
129:
112:
109:
108:
103:
98:
93:
88:
83:
77:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1562:
1550:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1535:
1534:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1518:
1514:
1511:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1496:
1493:
1491:
1488:
1487:
1464:
1461:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1444:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1423:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1394:
1392:
1389:
1387:
1385:
1379:
1376:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1347:search engine
1344:
1340:
1336:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1310:
1305:
1299:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1287:
1283:
1277:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1268:
1263:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1242:
1241:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1219:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1182:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1129:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1110:
1109:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1061:
1055:
1051:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1036:
1032:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1005:
999:
995:
989:
988:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
968:
966:
962:
958:
954:
951:
950:
935:
929:
925:
918:
917:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
899:
898:
897:
892:
886:
882:
875:
874:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
847:
841:
837:
830:
826:
825:
824:
820:
816:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
801:
795:
791:
784:
783:
782:
778:
774:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
734:
733:
729:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
707:
689:
686:
681:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
664:
658:
654:
648:
644:
643:
642:
639:
634:
628:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
613:
607:
603:
596:
595:
594:
591:
586:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
569:
563:
559:
552:
548:
547:
546:
543:
538:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
521:
515:
511:
505:
501:
500:
499:
496:
491:
485:
482:
480:
476:
472:
468:
465:
464:
453:
447:
443:
436:
435:
434:
430:
426:
422:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
403:
397:
393:
387:
383:
382:
381:
377:
373:
372:Kettleonwater
369:
365:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
351:Kettleonwater
348:
345:
344:
340:
334:
330:
324:
319:
316:
310:
306:
300:
295:
294:
293:
292:
286:
282:
274:
272:
262:
258:
255:
252:
248:
244:
240:
237:
234:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
212:
209:
208:Find sources:
204:
201:
195:
191:
187:
183:
178:
174:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
152:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
133:
130:
128:
125:
124:
123:
121:
116:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
72:
69:
67:
66:
63:
62:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1538:
1536:
1512:
1494:
1468:
1462:
1445:
1424:
1395:
1384:Spy-cicle💥
1383:
1377:
1338:
1337:
1303:Sergecross73
1297:
1261:Sergecross73
1243:
1191:
1128:the headline
1111:
969:
952:
828:
767:
735:
731:
730:
679:Sergecross73
646:
632:Sergecross73
584:Sergecross73
536:Sergecross73
489:Sergecross73
483:
466:
363:
346:
275:
268:
256:
250:
242:
235:
229:
223:
217:
207:
113:
60:Lee Vilenski
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1513:Speedy keep
1433:(Oinkers42)
1345:If you use
1218:WP:ORGDEPTH
1200:(Oinkers42)
976:and to me.
370:, however.
233:free images
1170:group refs
504:WP:REFBOMB
1543:talk page
1517:WP:BEFORE
1404:WP:NEXIST
1400:WP:BEFORE
1359:Anonymous
1355:WP:NEXIST
1276:WP:TRIVIA
1256:WP:BEFORE
1112:Merge to
732:Weak Keep
551:WP:BURDEN
156:Bulbasaur
71:Bulbasaur
37:talk page
1545:or in a
1500:Jumpytoo
1365:Link20XX
1148:We cite
1133:We cite
907:Link20XX
864:Link20XX
815:Link20XX
773:Link20XX
760:Link20XX
715:Link20XX
368:Venusaur
200:View log
141:glossary
39:or in a
1408:WP:ARTN
1339:Comment
1282:ZXCVBNM
1244:Comment
1196:Pikachu
1192:Comment
1050:ZXCVBNM
1031:ZXCVBNM
994:ZXCVBNM
924:ZXCVBNM
881:ZXCVBNM
862:to me.
836:ZXCVBNM
790:ZXCVBNM
768:Update:
653:ZXCVBNM
602:ZXCVBNM
558:ZXCVBNM
510:ZXCVBNM
467:Comment
442:ZXCVBNM
392:ZXCVBNM
364:Comment
329:ZXCVBNM
305:ZXCVBNM
281:ZXCVBNM
239:WP refs
227:scholar
173:protect
168:history
118:New to
1429:WP:GNG
1412:Haleth
1308:msg me
1266:msg me
1252:WP:RSP
1223:Haleth
1139:essays
1087:Haleth
903:Arceus
813:that.
684:msg me
637:msg me
589:msg me
541:msg me
494:msg me
425:Haleth
386:Rhydon
271:WP:GNG
211:Google
177:delete
1485:Focus
1119:three
254:JSTOR
215:books
194:views
186:watch
182:links
16:<
1526:talk
1504:Talk
1495:Keep
1463:Keep
1454:talk
1446:Keep
1437:talk
1425:Keep
1416:talk
1406:and
1396:Keep
1378:Keep
1369:talk
1323:talk
1286:TALK
1227:talk
1204:talk
1180:czar
1156:And
1091:talk
1054:TALK
1035:TALK
1018:talk
998:TALK
982:talk
970:Keep
961:talk
957:Artw
953:Keep
928:TALK
911:talk
885:TALK
868:talk
840:TALK
819:talk
794:TALK
777:talk
764:talk
736:Keep
719:talk
657:TALK
606:TALK
562:TALK
549:The
514:TALK
484:Keep
475:talk
446:TALK
429:talk
396:TALK
376:talk
355:talk
347:Keep
333:TALK
309:TALK
285:TALK
247:FENS
221:news
190:logs
164:talk
160:edit
54:SNOW
50:keep
1357:.
742:or
471:TTN
261:TWL
198:– (
1528:)
1456:)
1439:)
1418:)
1402:,
1371:)
1341:-
1325:)
1229:)
1206:)
1093:)
1020:)
984:)
963:)
913:)
870:)
821:)
779:)
754:,
750:,
721:)
713:.
477:)
431:)
378:)
357:)
325:.
301:.
241:)
192:|
188:|
184:|
180:|
175:|
171:|
166:|
162:|
52:.
1524:(
1482:m
1479:a
1476:e
1473:r
1470:D
1452:(
1435:(
1414:(
1367:(
1321:(
1288:)
1284:(
1225:(
1202:(
1089:(
1056:)
1052:(
1037:)
1033:(
1016:(
1000:)
996:(
980:(
959:(
930:)
926:(
909:(
887:)
883:(
866:(
842:)
838:(
817:(
796:)
792:(
775:(
762:(
756:3
752:2
748:1
717:(
659:)
655:(
608:)
604:(
564:)
560:(
516:)
512:(
473:(
448:)
444:(
427:(
398:)
394:(
374:(
353:(
335:)
331:(
311:)
307:(
287:)
283:(
265:)
257:·
251:·
243:·
236:·
230:·
224:·
218:·
213:(
205:(
202:)
196:)
158:(
143:)
139:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.