Deletion of Chronology of the Harry Potter series

Comment: per  and the opening argument
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT)

Comment: some of the basic information listed under Chronology of the Harry Potter series#Events|Events could probably be sourced directly to the novels or the odd statement made by the author. However everything in the sections on the Chronology of the Harry Potter series#Timeline basis|Timeline basis and Chronology of the Harry Potter series#Contradictions|Contradictions appears to be |original research. Starting from the first sentence there are already problems ''"The official timeline is rooted in a date cited in Rowling’s second book"'' - what makes the timeline official - it appears to have been pieced together by Wikipedia editors not published by anyone who holds the copyright to the books, their content or their characters? From Wikipedia:No original research: ''"an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."'' Pretty much everything that frames the list of events is based on interpretation of some form or another and without that framework the page is just a list of plot details - not an |encyclopaedia article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:5P)

Comment: This is nothing but |''Harry Potter''{{'}}s plot sourced primarily from |primary sources or |unreliable secondary sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT||WP:PSTS||WP:RS)

Comment: Just because there is plot-related information on a page, doesn't mean that it should be deleted. In addition, as long as (among other things), there is no synthesis involved, primary sources are indeed acceptable sources, per . While there are those who |may not like it, the information would seem to be "notable", especially if this list page is considered a "spin-out" of the main article. Noting, of course, that there is currently no consensus to delete spin-out articles in this way. (As Man in Black knows, I think. Per the last several polls, and the ongoing debate at WP:NOT concerning WP:NOTPLOT, and WP:Notability (fiction), among other places.) I have only ever seen one argument that goes beyond "IDONTWANTITHERE" concerning "in-universe" information in articles (by User:Hiding - which was, I believe, to be wary of fair use/copyright infringement). So if you have information concerning ''that'', great, let's discuss it. Otherwise, there is simply no reason grounded in policy for why this information should be excluded
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: purely plot summary, while we already have plenty of plot summary for the Harry Potter novels in their separate articles and the character pages. Adding info on how the plot summary was achieved does not constitute real-world coverage of the chronology, only background. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Merely a massive amount of #PLOT|plot tidbits, |in-universe details, and |trivia organized into a giant list. Absolutely doesn't belong on Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:WAF||WP:TRIVIA)