Deletion of Chronology of the Harry Potter stories (2nd nomination)

Comment: The whole article is trying to argue when the events of the story took place, in violation of . The only factual real-world statement is "The dates are inconsistant, and JKR has admitted she's poor in math." You don't need an article for that. Leave this for a fan wikia. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: A timeline of the popular book series. Sources are only primary and from unreliable fan pages, breaking  and . Some of the content is unsourced or original research () This belongs on a fan site, not Wikipedia (). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:NOTWEBHOST)

Comment: This article lacks of the '''independent''' sources necessary for erifiability. Almost all references are from the books or fan sites. Most importantly, it also lacks of notability, as there seem to be little, if any, coverage of the topic by |reliable sources (the topic being the ''contradictions in the chronology of Harry Potter'', not ''Harry Potter'' itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Article passed its previous AFD following a  decision in favor of reversing the previous deletion (when it was called Dates in Harry Potter. I don't see anything that has changed to warrant a change. As the closing admin stated, sourceability is the key, and if there aren't already there will be additional sources created on this topic. I agree that  needs to be maintained, but I do not agree that using primary sources suddenly equals OR, otherwise we may as well delete 99.99% of all film, TV and book articles on Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV||WP:NOR)

Comment: Per DGG, and per author Rowling's and copyright owner Warner's creations of and acknowledgements of the timeline. Events in the books are not "dateless", and it is not O.R. to deduce that the 500th anniversary of a 1492 event would fall in 1992. Other dates are from documents created by Rowling and from interviews by her. This satisfies , and it is material closely related to a highly notable book series which would make the main articles on the books excessivly long if incorporated there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per |significant coverage in reliable sources such as ''http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WTHB&p_theme=wthb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=11A6853269A08E20&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D Waco Tribune-Herald'' and ''http://books.google.com/books?id=K5zOroHn_LYC&pg=PA44&dq=harry+potter+timeline&sig=ACfU3U3X53Xfjnepbzah8GhJsMFgC4vtIw The Harry Potter Companion'' (containing a 52-page chapter on the timeline of events). It is stretching far beyond the intent of the original research policy to suggest we can't ever synthesize information from multiple sources; synthesis is only becomes |original research if editors are trying to advance a position. As long as we present information in a neutral way based on the information we can derive from sources (including information derived from sources and simple arithmetical computations, which any editor can reliably verify and confirm), we do not run afoul of the prohibition on original research. Where sources agree about where events belong in the Harry Potter timeline, they can unequivocally be put in their proper place in this article. Where they don't, NPOV can be applied and the events can be listed separately from the main chronology, indicating where the different sources place them, or footnotes can indicate where sources conflict with the timeline. There are enough reliable sources to improve this article without necessitating original research, and so it should not be deleted. It is also looking into a |crystal ball to suggest that articles would be original research because later "official" sources may conflict with the current sources available. For example, 2012 Summer Olympics won't become "original research" if war breaks out and the Olympics are cancelled; the article would simply need to be updated as new sources become available
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:OR||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Fails |notability and |verifiability as well as |the fiction policy extremely badly - even if the books themselves are notable, it doesn't mean this timeline is. It doesn't really matter if the article supports all its clear |original research with a couple dozen cites of the books themselves and over thirty cites from just one of the many fansites used to source the article (that fansite, by the way, seems to be the basis for this article as it has a lot of content dedicated to hammering out a timeline like this one), because despite the considerable work obviously put into sourcing this article, the author was unable to find even a single relevant secondary source. It seems like a lot of people aren't well-versed on policy in this AfD, because you can source a series' content from itself all you want, but it's nothing more than fansite-level cruft until you can find secondary sources, otherwise you could put articles about anything fictional on Wikipedia without fear of it being deleted. Just because the books are notable and a few subjects from them are notable, by the way, doesn't mean a low-interest |plot summary anyway. Also lacks significant real-world coverage, but at this point that's just another nail in the coffin. I suggest that people read  as it covers pretty much all my arguements
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:FICT||WP:OR||WP:PLOT||WP:FICT)

Comment: while Harry Potter is notable, the Timeline/ Chronology of Harry Potter is not notable. Furthermore the article lacks independent sources and is mostly 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: This article is a #PLOT|plot summary of the Harry Potter books with some dates added on.  58K is far from a "concise" plot summary, and thus violates #PLOT
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)