Deletion of Chronology of Star Wars

Comment: The policy that I feel most strongly addresses this subject is #PLOT.  There also seems to be a great deal of  and it's dangerously close to a copyvio
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:OR)

Comment: WP:NOTCLEANUP|AfD is not cleanup. There is no |immediate need to delete this (as one might need to in the case of a |BLP), so what's the rush to delete? Again, AfD is not cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:There is no deadline (WP:DEADLINE||WP:BLP)

Comment: This is  pretty much copied whole cloth out of ''Star Wars: The Essential Chronology'' (a licensed guide), with fan updates and annotations. It's #PLOT|duplicative, excessive plot summary that's already present in our hundreds-of-articles series on every single licensed book, comic, and whatnot. This borders on copyvio; we're the meat of a work of fiction (''Essential Chronology
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The chronology of the Star Wars series ''has'' been covered in clearly independent and reliable sources (such as the ''Los Angeles Times'' article cited above). Furthermore, books written by authors not involved in the creation of the original stories, and published by major publishing companies—even though licensed and authorized by the creators, developers, and publishers of the original works—ought to be considered independent for the purposes of notability and verifiability. Finally, compiling facts in ways that aid navigation for the reader is one of the main purposes of |lists, and should in no way be considered |original research unless it advances a contentious position
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LISTS||WP:OR)

Comment: so someone reads books, tries to put an order to things, finds 1 published chronology, MAKES UP a dating scheme and tada... we have an article. Seems like pure 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I'm working on converting it into a decent article. I'm removing a lot of the cruft, and once I remove what's uncitable i'm going to find citations for the rest of it. I've got primary sources, as well as the Star Wars Encyclopedia and several other books that count as third-party, so claims of , , , , #PLOT and  will be moot. I acknowledge that as it is, the article is a flaming pile of shit, but i'm going to work on it. also, it is a nominee for WikiProject Star Wars Collaboration of the Month
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NOTWEBHOST||WP:NOT||WP:SYNTH)