Deletion of Chronology of the Doctor Who universe (2nd nomination)

Comment: sourced to 300 |personal observations, with a few token URLs. There is already an index of articles at List of Doctor Who serials which is great example of a suitable list. List of Doctor Who serials is entirely |verifiable and this list can't be verified. List of Doctor Who serials summarizes existing commentary from secondary sources and this list is |original research sourced to observations.  List of Doctor Who serials offers more than just a |plot recap and this one is designed to be nothing but a plot recap. We have two lists about the same thing, and this list fails three core policies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:PLOT)

Comment: still a  based on original . Only sources are the series itself, or commissioned works that generate a profit for those who made the series. What trivial mentions remain can be added to existing articles about the Doctor Who series. Special:Contributions/74.198.9.153|74.198.9.153
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CONTENTFORK||WP:SYNTHESIS)

Comment: Instead of nominating this article here, you should at last have ''tried'' to fix the article. After all, problems with sourcing and/or OR can and should be addressed by editing and  says so. They are not a reason for deletion. The article has, at this moment, 298(!) different sources and you picked a single one as an example why everything should be deleted. A lot of those entries listed ''are'' indeed sourced to reliable sources and/or primary sources after all. The list serves a valid purpose for readers who wish to place the episodes of the show in context. The article does not fail  (|vague waving there does not excuse not reading what the page is about), as it explicitly says "... as an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." As for , it simply doesn't apply here and you have not explained why we should think so.  does not apply because as a part of the MoS it describes ''how'' to write about fictional topics not ''whether'' to do it. As for linking to another AFD, remember that every article should be based on its merits. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:CONTENTFORK||WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:NOTPLOT||WP:WAF)

Comment: The content of the article is |original research by synthesis. It is also an unnecessary |content fork that presents a different stance from the plot of the series without being supported by reliable secondary sources. Since it lacks reception and significance, it is |a plot-only description of a fictional work. As the article is original research and a plot-only description of a fictional work, it falls into WP:!|what Wikipedia is not and, thus, it is not an appropriate list-topic for Wikipedia per the criteria of |appropriate topics for lists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:CFORK||WP:PLOT||WP:SALAT)

Comment: as entertaining as the article may be, the (largely assumed) detailed in-universe chronology of the series is largely |fancruft. Episode lists, plots and story arcs of Doctor Who are covered elsewhere, and there seems to be no compelling reason for this article as an additional 'index' of Doctor Who episodes. I'm not sure that the issues with the article can be fixed, as the issue is endemic to the purpose of the article. This article is largely based on primary sources and speculation, as opposed to articles such as UNIT dating controversy, which are supported by secondary sources. The amount of effort editors have put into the article is also not a basis for maintaining an article. Therefore, I have to say, ''Delete''. (There is a Doctor Who Wiki for this kind of thing anyway
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: The sources are adequate to establish notability per .  And here's another one: ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2nJ0knn8rRUC Doctor Who: A History of the Universe'' - "the complete timeline of the Doctor Who universe, from Event One to the universe's final destruction billions of years in the future." Q.E.D
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)