Deletion of List of creatures in Primeval (4th nomination)

Comment: Every previous nomination has resulted in '''Keep''' so this renomination seems to be vexatious, contrary to , especially as it seems to be mainly .  "Too large" is not a reason to delete – it's a reason to , which is what has been done here.  See also 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DELAFD||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:SPLIT||WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: This is no different to any other list of characters article for a TV series and is entirely appropriate and supported by MOS:TV.. The concept of ''Primeval'' was driven by the success of ''Walking with Dinosaurs'' and, while the human stars are important, the real stars of the series are the dinosaurs. There are simply too many to include in the the main article so this article was created. The article doesn't just cover the creatures from ''Primeval'', it also includes creatures from its spinoff, ''Primeval: New World''. Nothing has changed since the last nomination and this nomination seems more a case of . The nominator is incorrect in saying {{tq|There are no reliable, third-party sources that establish this as a notable subject}} as there are several |reliable |secondary sources in the article.Similarly, claims that {{tq|The information here is almost entirely unsourced}} is incorrect. There are 23 sources in the article. Much of the information is from actual episodes, which are regarded as acceptable |primary sources. That said, at the last AfD the article had 41 references and it now has only 23. I have no idea why many were removed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:RS||WP:SECONDARY||WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: A list that gets into overly intense detail about the source material, fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: It’s astonishing that this still exists. It does not in any way establish notability to meet either  or . There is nothing that can be called significant covering the topic as a whole. It lacks discussion from a real world perspective. It’s just a massive  failure
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:LISTN||WP:NOTPLOT)

Comment: as a failure of , , and . There is no out-of-universe context from reliable secondary sources to meet Wikipedia guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:GNG||WP:PLOT)

Comment: The information here is almost entirely unsourced, and what few sources there are do not appear to be from reliable, secondary sources.  The previous AFDs (the most recent being over six years ago, so no, this renomination is not "vexatious") were kept on comments founded entirely on  arguments, with no actual policy based arguments as to why this unsourced information passes .  I might have suggested a light merge somewhere if there was actually any reliably sourced information worth preserving, but there is not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSNOTABLE||WP:LISTN)