Deletion of Tiger versus lion (2nd nomination)

Comment: meets , the  are  Smithsonian (magazine) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/tiger-vs-lionwho-would-win-83275452/?no-ist, Nature (journal) https://www.nature.com/articles/012495b0 and Live Science https://www.livescience.com/21619-lion-tiger-fight.html. Books on the topic have been published by educational publishers Capstone Publishers|Capstone https://books.google.com/books?id=v92FTWrCTvwC and Scholastic Corporation|Scholastic https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=h_DxSAAACAAJ, as well as others https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5EoOAAAACAAJ. It's covered in the popular media like HuffPost https://www.huffpost.com/entry/if-a-tiger-fought-a-lion_b_3348978. Here's the The Spokesman-Review 1959 https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xZwzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y-cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3264,2462178. It's a notable topic, as notable as Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 or Comparison of the healthcare systems in Canada and the United States
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:THREE)

Comment: per  and . There's sentences and even sections that I'd edit out, but AfD is not the place, and |I wouldn't blow it up. There's a |silly element to it, but that's not really a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything (WP:42||WP:SIGCOV||WP:TNT||WP:ODD)

Comment: per WP:IMPERFECT and per the SIGCOV s. The nominator's rationale seems to be , however we keep articles that meet out GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: to Lion and tiger interactions (Tiger and lion fights also would at least be an improvement). There's a lot to unpack here, and the community has had trouble dealing with the disruption associated with content in this area. In short, the main issue is , or more specifically  the occurs with article bloating when editors try to fit in as much as possible that doesn't match with that is actually notable in the topic. A lot of fluff can be removed or prevented with a title refocus where if it isn't directly about the interaction between the two, it doesn't get in the article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Over 100 reliable sources listed on the article proves that the subject easily meets . I find this article and subject more sensible and familiar than a number of articles listed on main page right now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The nomination is based on the shallow |argument to avoid of .  It utterly fails to address the previous nomination which took place just last year and was a clear '''Keep'''.  This is therefore a disruptive nomination per  which explains that it's "''disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.''"  The topic has a high readership and has persisted for many years.  That's because the topic is very notable and so there are numerous sources.  The topic passes  and any difficulties are just an ordinary matter of editing and dispute resolution per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA||WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC||WP:DELAFD||WP:GNG||WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: per . The article is...a jungle. Sure, it's a notable topic, but is that a reason to keep it? The article is something that is not something that should be kept in this encyclopedia because it is, at this stage at least, quite unsuitable for this project; does GNG justify unencyclopedic articles? '''&#124
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: This article seems to "pick and choose" any historical account involving lions and tigers, instead of focusing on any other animals the lions or tigers may have fought. The fact is, one could make such an article for a wide variety of animal combinations, but it doesn't make it any less 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Absurd amount of synthesis here. The entire Physical and behavioral comparison section needs to go. Just because you can juxtapose a citation about male lions being X size, a citation about female lions being Y size, a citation about male tigers being Z size, and a citation about female tigers being Q size does not mean this is a notable topic. I could imagine an article discussing lions and tigers living or fighting together, but such disconnected content merely makes this a : the sources refer to each cat individually or with respect to the rest of the big cats too. Elephants and rhinoceroses both have ivory and thick skin, but just because you could make detailed comparisons between their sizes and behaviors does not mean it's an encyclopedic topic. Or hell, just makes List of felids ten times bigger because we can compare tigers and leopards or lions and cheetahs too (that's what many of the sources do)! A '''rename''' to perhaps Interaction between lions and tigers could work, but not the current state. As the AFD mentioned by Elmidae says, the physical comparison would be "a very limited merger" so Andrew D's addition of the entire thing here is inappropriate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:REFBOMB)