Deletion of Dates in Harry Potter (second nomination)

Comment: First, I hate it when a DRV is done without notifying the person(s) who tagged the article for deletion (speedy in this case), so that they too can present their rationale for doing so. Secondly, there were some rather incorrect statements in the deletion review, like the argument that it was deleted because it was OR (which was only one of the arguments,  being the most important), or arguments like "First of all, primary sources in this case are Rowling's original writing, not the novels based on that writing. " This has to be a new one: the manuscript is the primary source, when it is printed, it becomes a secondary source? I don't think so... Anyway, on to the current article: it has two parts, a timeline (i.e. a plot summary, but in a less useful form for those who haven't read the books and thus most need a plot summary: so a good canidate to get rid off under ), and a discussion of the timeline and how it was compiled. This shifts the discussion to another question: is the timeline in any way notable? It has been published, yes, but it hasn't been the subject of any reliable secondary sources. While there have been many, many reviews of the Harry Potter books, their success, the authors, the movies, the actors, ..., I don't think there has been any review, criticism, or other reliable independent secondary source about this timeline (as the article states, it is commonly used by the fandom, and I don't think that the Harry Potter Lexicon can be considered a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense). So there are two problems now: Wikipedia doesn't want the timeline itself as an article (for  and similar guidemine arguments like ), and it doesn't want an article ''about'' the timeline (as there are no secondary sources about it). The best solution is to delete this article, and add a link to the timeline as an external link to the main Harry Potter pages
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:WAF)

Comment: please note, from : "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself."..."The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments."..."Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates ), "original research" (violates ), and "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective notability criteria. (In the cases of non-notable biographical articles, it is better to say "does not meet " to avoid insulting the subject.) The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates ) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." Simply saying 'I don't like it' is not sufficient, nor is a simple vote in favour or against
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:BIO||WP:NPOV)

Comment: per Black Falcon. The Potter book series is without recent precedent in its impact, and a timeline is a useful adjunct as an alternative to re-reading 3000 pages of novels to clarify a detail. Such a massive body of fiction is well served by articles such as this. The timeline is an NPOV article not seeking to advance some controversial point of view by synthesis. The editing process can delete any minor characters' dates  which the article's editors consider unencyclopedic. As an example of why this article should be kept, I had wondered how old Dumbledore was supposed to be. This article gives an age/birthdate, and cites it to a published transcript of an interview with Rowling. Thanks, Wikipedia! Things merely cited to a fansite like the Lexicon could be deleted unless the sources used in the Lexicon can be confirmed, and then the dates could be cited to their original sources if those satisfy 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT)

Comment: or '''transwiki''' to an appropriate Harry Potter fan wiki. This is |unattributable to |non-first-party sources (which I mentioned on the DRV), and is written from an |in-universe perspective
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT||WP:RS||WP:WAF)

Comment: The main argument to delete the article was that it constitutes an |original synthesis. However, this article does ''not'' advance a position, as required by . As for the idea that the article synthesises disparate facts in an original manner, I shudder to think that the simple act of ordering dates chronologically or adding or subtracting numbers, which is explicitly allowed in , could be considered "original research
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNT||WP:SYNT||WP:OR)

Comment: or '''transwiki''' somewhere more appropriate. There's really no way to |source this without violating , along with the in-universe concerns
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT||WP:SYNT)