Deletion of List of giant animals in fiction (2nd nomination)

Comment: An |indiscriminate collection of information - are there any sources that describe ''the list as a whole
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay.   is an essay.  Our actual policies and guidelines are , , , and .  This topic passes them because it is covered in sources such as ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PHbeCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18 The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters''; ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=McUIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT367 Armageddon Films''; ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B7SaCwAAQBAJ The Kaiju Film: A Critical Study of Cinema's Biggest Monsters
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE||WP:CLN||WP:LISTN)

Comment: Per  and
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: per , which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  Is a list of animals that are "large" in size in ''all of fiction'' really discriminate and focused as a topic?  I'd be more inclined to see this as a category than a list article.  The subject is not focused enough to ever be truly complete, nor could it be developed into a list article of any level of quality until parameters on what is "giant" are set - and given that fictional universes don't have data for the most part, that would mean using  to do so.  This just screams problematic all over
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTEVERYTHING)

Comment: Arguments by keepists are garbage. Fails , or if keepists really want a policy, .  &raquo
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT||WP:NOTDIR)