Deletion of Exploding animal (4th nomination)

Comment: I concur with Cyclopia, this is a case of  rather than original research or synthesis. The fact that prior deletion requests resulted in a ''speedy keep'' the last two times this was proposed should have clued in the nominator
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: I don't see a  issue here. The introduction and content makes clear there are a variety of causes/sources and there is a common thread.  The article does need improvements so it wouldn't be an incredible loss but the preferable solution would be to improve the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: The reference to  is badly wrong: it says ''Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources'' but here there is no original conclusion here. There is no original research.  and  would be appropriate if we were discussing articles of each episode, but they do not refer to article content. In fact it was exactly for these reasons that several articles were merged into this one. Actually, unifying sources content under a common denominator because Wikipedians say so is exactly our job in making an encyclopedia; that the nom thinks it's "garbage" only means he |doesn't like it, but well, this has never been a good reason to delete stuff. It could be renamed as List of exploding animals however, but this is an editorial decision
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:SBST||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Inherently encyclopedic. Good use of  secondary sources that satisfy . The article could be expanded greatly, to include discussion from a wealth of additional secondary sources that deal primarily with the subject matter
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)