Deletion of Physical comparison of tigers and lions (2nd nomination)

Comment: or ''very limited merge'' to Tiger versus lion.  Mostly  that could similarly be done for every possible species pair combination by aligning the (excessively-detailed) data from references to each that for the most part never themselves compare the two
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: As for the nominator's comment about why this can't be covered in other articles like lion and tiger, he has opposed having what he would call "too much", "trivial" or "unimportant" information in pages like those, even if it's covered in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|WP:reliable sources and is directly related to the subject, such as in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lion&diff=848131765&oldid=848126069 this case, which led to the necessity of articles like this being kept separate from those pages, and as I have made it clear already, this is not , but a subject that has been '''directly''' covered in '''detail''', in a '''number''' of reliable sources, for example
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: There's been a lot of tiger vs. lion articles needing to be deleted lately for these same problems. Looking over this one, I don't see anything really worth merging, especially considering previous AfDs in this general subject. Better to just prune it out and let the other articles handle the subject matter that's already covered appropriately. Tiger versus lion is still a mess of a topic in terms of what is , so better to avoid a redirect and further s we've been trying to clean up here at AfD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: per nom. A big steaming pile of . (Now, if https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HrfbV16-FQ bears had been included, oh my
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)