Deletion of Reptilian humanoids in fiction (2nd nomination)

Comment: Article is an invitation for original research (what is a reptilian humanoid?  how much is enough for a mention?  Are dinosaurs reptilian?  turtles (technically, yes, but w/e)?).  Article does not support the claim that the concept "reptilian humanoids in fiction" is notable.  Such a claim, and substantiation of that claim is required under .  Furthermore, any claim made (including the implicit claim made by the existence of the article) without a corresponding notion from any reliable source represents original research.  We've been Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_Airlines_in_popular_culture|over Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wealthiest_families_in_history|this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_British_military%2C_naval_and_air_force_figures_by_wealth_at_death|before.  Finally, it should be taken as a sign that the cleanup tags from the last AfD remain 12 months on.  This article was nominated for deletion, staunchly defended and then ignored.  All it takes is one or two reliable, secondary sources discussing the topic in question.  In 12 months we haven't seen that.  As for the disposition of the user who initiated the original AfD, it '''doesn't matter at all'''.  This AfD is different from that one, so even if all the previous users were sockpuppets and trolls, this AfD will be debated on the merits.  Furthermore it does not expunge the article in question from guilt if an editor who wanted to delete it is found to be a sockpuppet.  This article can either be brought into line with  and  with a ''single'' source or it should be deleted.  I would consider a merge only as an editorial decision if the article in question is greatly reduced in size before merging into a "B" class article (although it should be C class
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:OR)