Deletion of List of fictional spaceships

Comment: per /, plus the grouping is possibly |original research. Yet another fancruft dump. Though there is the possibility to split and refine inclusion criteria and delete only the non-notable stuff. Like the list of fictional swords, it's just too vast, and some works of fictions have tons and tons of named spaceships, making maintenance and size a major issue (under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:IINFO||WP:OR||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: per Boffob, the issues with this list are numerous, primarily with /, undue weight and original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:IINFO)

Comment: I have to concur with Ckatz's comments above. If articles on things like fictional spaceships are being deleted or merged (pretty much the Enterprise and Galactica are the only fictional ships that will pass the notability criteria these days), then lists are the only other viable option, whether a concise list like this, or something like the episode lists that have a bit more detail. Either allow one or the other, or push for an outright ban on such articles. I see no problem with this list as someone wanting to put in the effort can verify the existence of these ships (verifiability, not truth, remember) in the works cited.  That said, the article should be reorganized into works of fiction, as dividing up into categories like "small craft" require editors to think, which violates 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: No cogent reason to delete is presented and our |editing policy encourages us to develop such articles further
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: I have boldly edited the list based on the suggestion from Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists that ''Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia''. It still contains over a dozen entrys. Shortened version is no longer . Stick to guidelines and this list is not listcruft
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: Another |indiscriminate list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: I can't really add that much to what has been said- that it is a hopeless, sprawling, |virtually unsourced, pointless, |indiscriminate, fancrufty list. I will disagree with 23skidoo's assertion that our notability standards are getting stricter. In the six months or so that I've been back I have observed that the reverse has been true. Our standards for material on fictional subjects has gone from being unacceptably lax to pretty much nonexistent. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, there has been a tendency to treat AfD discussions as a vote which means you need only a handful of fanboys going "OMG! Keep! Keep! It's mega important!" to cancel out people who actually argue in terms of policy. The second reason is the proliferation of myths like "Spin-off articles don't need to demonstrate independent notability." They do. Claiming otherwise leads to a lot of crappy articles about aspects of works of fiction that have no relevance or importance outside it, as well as a tendency to believe that such spin-off articles don't even need to be sourced. This terrible article is a textbook example of why I hold the opinions I do, and why I argue them every chance I get
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:IINFO)