Deletion of InGen (2nd nomination)

Comment: as in-universe, unencyclopedic, per  and OT
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: fairly obvious fail of  and OT#PLOT
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: The article passes #PLOT. It is notable fictional company appearing in the Jurassic Park series of novels and films. The article needs more sources. It would be better to improve this article instead of deleting it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Article and its subject have not gotten any less notable than the last stab at deletion, less than three months ago. Given that this AfD violates  ("It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works.") in that there is no evidence of any change in notability or editor opinion, there is no valid justification to take a second attempt at deletion, which it appears will be followed by a third, forth, fifth effort, ad infinitum, when this one fails
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: fails  and OT, more exposition of this argument in my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isla Sorna (2nd nomination
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: I'm sure there may not be outright sources, but the stories, movies etc do exist... you can't say it is not passing ... just .I think this is a classic case to |ignore the rules
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:IAR)

Comment: Flunks  and OT#PLOT in pretty basic ways; it's just snippets of setting and plot from various JP works. Nothing here worth saving, and no real-world context to make it useful
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT)