Deletion of List of deadliest animals to humans

Comment: Topic is notable with a lot of  lists, like https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/which-animal-kills-the-most-humans/ Telegraph, and notably, the https://www.britannica.com/list/9-of-the-worlds-deadliest-mammals Encyclopædia Britannica.  The article however as noted by the nom has problems with some non-Encyclopædic sourcing (I removed one), and a composite list which is  terrority.  I don't think the article is so bad that I would  it, and the BBC is a decent RS, however, I only give it the benefit of the doubt because of the strong notability of the topic, which is the most dominant criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:TNT)

Comment: No pretense of compliance with efore.  Lots of on line sources available, as would be proved if the nominator had bothered to click on the links at the top of this very page.  This is the kind of article that folks looking to wikipedia need.  ot paper.  To be sure, sourcing and links can (and should) be improved.  But that is at bottom a content dispute, not a reason for 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B||WP:N||WP:AFD)