Deletion of Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination)

Comment: There was not a consensus to delete last time round. What makes the nominator think that nominating it again just a few months down the line will change that? Renominating because the desired result was not achieved last time is not going to change anything. The article documents notable, verifiable events in a notable, verifiable series as happens for many other series on Wikipedia and makes for useful navigation through WP's coverage of the Star Wars series. The elements of it that are OR can be removed and other issues the nominator raises in his rationale can be resolved through normal editing but AfD is not the venue. Articles for Deletion is for '''deletion''', not |forcing cleanup, the clue is in the name
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: maybe this is an  vote, but I just don't see how this meets our inclusion guidelines with regards to writing about fiction. It's entirely in-universe, composed from primary sources, with no real-world commentary, and of no interest to anyone but a fan. I know this is a 'word to avoid', and I'm sorry if it offends anyone, but... it's |fancruft. I don't see what place it has in an encyclopaedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:FANCRUFT)