Deletion of List of aircraft by date and usage category

Comment: Looks like a well thought-out comprehensive overview of aircraft; it's not even too long to load or painful to read, which is quite a usability achievement given its broad scope. Probably not very useful for aviation buffs, but definitely worth an article for casual readers, as a starting point to learn more about the subject. Finally, it does no harm and gets plenty of views. Let it live on, for the sake of our audience. eaders first! Arguments to delete sound like , to which I would answer 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R||WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT||WP:SOFIXIT)

Comment: There are lots of :category:lists of aircraft|lists of aircraft as the general idea obviously passes .  Most of them seem to be quite silly like List of aircraft (0-A) which doesn't contain any aircraft at all.  This list has a fairly obvious and sensible structure, organising the major aircraft types by period and function – airliners, bombers, fighters &c.  As such, it's much more useful for browsing than than the absurd alphabetic tree which assumes that you already know what you're looking for and so seems quite pointless.  The list has existed since 2003 and doesn't seem at all controversial – notice that this is the first AFD in all that time.  If there's a better way of organising this then per  we should keep this for cross-checking or as a summary.  Deletion would be disruptive per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:PRESERVE||WP:ATD)

Comment: as this is a useful list for readers and satisfies . This article should be kept as a list of lists, with its current content split into articles like List of civil air transport aircraft by date, List of general aviation aircraft by date, List of military transport aircraft by date, List of civil helicopters by date, etc. which should solve length concerns raised by delete voters above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: More suited to categories. The entire list, being sourced solely by other articles, reeks of  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTIINFO||WP:FANCRUFT)