Deletion of Smallville timeline

Comment: Blatant violation of , not to mention , as the lead section openly admits.  I don't think timelines for fictional universes are generally suitable for Wikipedia, and this one certainly fails policy.  Maybe move it to the Smallville wikia if it isn't already there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT||WP:NOR)

Comment: The lead already says it is based in |original research, and the rest seems like a violation of #PLOT, i.e. no (sourced) analysis etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=Wikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2FTimeline&namespace=0 General precedent shows that fictional timelines have a hard time surviving AfD. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: per , , and it's also written entirely in-universe (not a deletion reason, but another bad thing about the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: IMHO this isn't under the injunction, but since the case should close pretty soon, the point will soon be moot.  That said, these sort of "timelines", like theWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffyverse chronology (2nd nomination)|Buffyverse chronology that was deleted last year, are original research, trying to tie together primary sources in a novel way, creating a new |synthesis of primary source materials
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)