Deletion of Doctor Who story chronology (2nd nomination)

Comment: This article appears to be |original research by synthesis and there is no indication that it meets the |general notability guideline by itself. This is a |plot-only description of a fictional work and there is not a single reliable secondary source to presume that the topic is notable. Even the article itself mentions that the chronology is according to the personal perspective of a fictional character within the series, not from a real-world perspective, so this means that the article only has a -U|in-universe perspective, which does not justify its inclusion in Wikipedia without reception or significance. Furthermore, the content itself has no inline references to backup the content. Instead, it has multiple notes about the interpretation of primary sources, which is original research. Even considering the article a list, |notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and the subject of the list as presented in the article has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, it is not an appropriate for Wikipedia. As the list also fall into WP:!|what Wikipedia is not, it is also not suitable for the criteria of |appropriate topics for lists. Because of this, this article is redundant |content fork from the several ''Doctor Who''-related articles that alread cover the plot of the series, and, thus, this article should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:GNG||WP:PLOT||WP:IN||WP:LISTN||WP:SALAT||WP:CFORK)

Comment: Nearly completely unreferenced and infested with . 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: as . Violates |what Wikipedia is not as a  only . Someone put some work into this that should be hosted at their website or at Wikia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT||WP:PLOT||WP:CONTENTFORK)