Deletion of List of fantasy worlds

Comment: Easily passes  and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per  and .  Here's a selection of sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: WP:IDONTLIKEIT wears many hats: small list = "it's useless, trivial", large list = "it's too expansive, unmanageable". Fantasy worlds is clearly a notable topic so List of Fantasy Worlds is an appropriate list, all it needs is a little TLC and it should make a perfectly decent featured list. Oh, and  is met
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:CLN)

Comment: First of all, none of the points of  actually applies here. Or does it? If this is the only policy-based argument, I don't really see why we have this discussion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: I do not believe the argument for  has made successfully made. On the other hand ,  and  are extremely valid points for this list, and their arguments have swayed me.  And for the people arguing that a PLANET is the same as a UNIVERSE, well it's obvious the don't understand those words actual meaning and need to read the first sentence of both those articles before they weigh in again. Finally the argument that actually makes some sense is ;  remove all references to universes that don't have articles on their own.  THAT I agree with
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:LISTN||WP:LISTCRIT||WP:NOTDUPE||WP:CSC)

Comment: Another thing, seeing that "no clear inclusion criteria" has now been claimed as a reason for deletion multiple times. We have an article fantasy world. So including what conforms to that article (and of course following the policies of Wikipedia to avoid an indiscriminate amount of entries) gives us an inclusion criterion. But if this is still not clear enough for some reason, ''defining clearer criteria for inclusion'' is something that can easily be done. tD tells us "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." So as "no clear inclusion criteria" can be solved, this is no argument for deletion according to Wikipedia's deletion policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)