Deletion of List of fictional extraterrestrials by form

Comment: It passes , being covered in sources such as ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mrt1PwAACAAJ Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials''.  There's plenty of blue-links and, as this is the master list, it should be the main focus of future development of this notable topic.  It parallels the List of fictional extraterrestrials and so maybe there's some scope for merger.  As there's lots of material, there are plenty of |alternatives to deletion which it is our |policy to prefer
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: I'm of the opinion that the ''content'' of this list should be |killed with fire, but, yeah, it could theoretically be a useful redirect for navigational purposes. It should also be noted that Andrew's above !vote follows https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_the_West_Indies_(Jamaica)&diff=843906816&oldid=843906709 his recent pattern of AFD comments that are so obviously disruptive that they come across as deliberate trolling with the intention of pushing someone into opening a discussion as to whether he should be TBANned: linking to the ''actual'' master list in the same post as mislabeling ''this'' as the master list is ... just wrong. As for "alternatives to deletion": AFD is (per pretty overwhelming consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=845918455#%22AFD_is_not_for_redirecting%22? here and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_keep/Archive_4&oldid=821996658#Should_we_permit_deletion_nominations_advocating_for_a_redirect? here) the proper forum for community discussion of whether an article should be redirected without its contents preserved in the live version of the encyclopedia, as there is no other place for it short of boldly making an edit one knows can be reverted on the grounds of it being de facto spontaneous deletion and therefore needing to be brought to AFD (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHerostratus%2FWell_jeez&type=revision&diff=775818199&oldid=775813485: people procedurally oppose RMs with "userfy" or "draftify" as the intended result on the grounds that these are frequently AFD/MFD results and I haven't found any discussion where that process actually was supported by consensus
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)