Deletion of List of science fiction short stories

Comment: meets  ie. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines" (oh look! wp:gng is above:)), numerous books discuss/group sf short stories eg. https://www.worldcat.org/title/norton-book-of-science-fiction-north-american-science-fiction-1960-1990/oclc/27382749&referer=brief_results ''The Norton Book of Science Fiction'', https://www.worldcat.org/title/starlit-corridor-modern-science-fiction-short-stories-and-poems/oclc/712582&referer=brief_results ''The Starlit Corridor'', https://www.worldcat.org/title/science-fiction-by-gaslight-a-history-and-anthology-of-science-fiction-in-the-popular-magazines-1891-1911/oclc/749724&referer=brief_results ''Science Fiction By Gaslight'', https://www.worldcat.org/title/rationalizing-genius-ideological-strategies-in-the-classic-american-science-fiction-short-story/oclc/18949561&referer=brief_results ''Rationalizing Genius'', https://www.worldcat.org/title/world-treasury-of-science-fiction/oclc/18955888&referer=brief_results ''The World Treasury of Science Fiction'', https://www.worldcat.org/title/science-fiction-omnibus/oclc/192026357&referer=brief_results ''A Science Fiction Omnibus
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: It's completely bizarre that this is even up for deletion. This list not only passes  but also seems to pass the much higher standard  with flying colors. But the real kicker is that there appears to be a unanimous consensus among the "delete" !voters here that the category should be retained regardless, meaning that the classification is not subjective after all. Per , lists and categories are complementary, and only in relatively exceptional cases should one be deleted without the other. No argument for this being a special case has been advanced, and the reasoning behind the "delete" arguments actually supports that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:CSC||WP:NOTDUPE)

Comment: meets  ie. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines"  Needs clean up, but AfD is not cleanup.  Obviously, no compliance with efore, which does apply.  This article can and should be improved, not deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:B)

Comment: First we delete lists of topics which have notable entries and which are discussed as a group when  is the best course of action. The first one that springs to mind for me is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_box_office_bombs_(2000s)|this one but I know I've seen others. It seems to me like this might be a case where we should heed the advice of  #6, {{tq|Some topics are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable.}} Best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:DOAL)

Comment: fails . Criteria is inconsistent and overbroad. I have no problem with keeping a better defined list, or turning this into a list of lists. The information may be best categorised
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)