The result was Keep two articles, no consensus on the others. This is a complex discussion, to the point that some people have suggested that it should be closed as WP:TRAINWRECK. Nevertheless, it seems like the consensus is strongly leaning towards the Dæmon and Dust articles meeting inclusion criteria owing to several sources which have been presented and only weakly contested (among other things "fancruft" is not a deletion reason). The list articles are more debatable as some people have skipped them and the discussion does not seem to have a clear consensus about whether they meet notability and forking guidelines mostly due to e.g concerns about whether the sources meet WP:SIGCOV criteria about primaryness and mentioning-in-passing and about whether the quality of the forked text actually justifies having them as separate articles. Also, a number of arguments are vague or not based in policy and guideline ("fancruft" is not a deletion guideline and "it's useful" or "other series have such lists as well" is not normally a sufficient reason to keep). Overall, it seems like the lists might benefit of dedicated discussion.
PS: I've replaced the asterisks in the list of nominated pages with colons as XFDCloser otherwise does not recognize them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)