Deletion of Starfighter

Comment: as both 1) a notable term covered in multiple reliable sources, and 2) a listing of substantially notable (as in, bluelinked) individual fictional elements.  I was surprised as how reasonable this was a as a listing of such craft.  I wouldn't be opposed to renaming, sourcing improvement, or swapping the main topic with the real-world "starfighter", but this clearly does not need to be deleted as any problems that exist can be fixed through regular editing, per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: The title starfighter should certainly be a blue link.  Looking through the books linked above, the primary topic for this title seems to be the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.  The various SF examples should be moved to the dab page, if they notable enough and actually called ''starfighters''.  The content which describes this as a general class of spacecraft seems reasonable but needs some good sources to support it.  Sorting all this out is a matter of ordinary editing, per |policy
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: There's some  going on here, but the concept is not, as CodeTheorist has explained. And while the article has indeed needed work for many years, keep in mind Wikipedia:There is no deadline|there is no deadline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: to Space fighter, which I suggest is a more widely-used name with fewer  issues. I'd be open to a merge to Military spacecraft in fiction and/or Space warfare in fiction, but I don't think it's necessary: this is a notable concept by itself
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)