Deletion of 1632 plot threads

Comment: Although fan-created fiction is new and interesting, this conflicts with  by placing too much weight on the plot and isn't notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article of it's own. Salvage the important bits in he main article. There is a 1632 Wiki, the rest can go there
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT)

Comment: The preferred course of action in  is ''not'' deletion, but improvement -- PLOT does not provide a delete rationale, but a merge one.  Those concerned "with the values of Wikipedia" should read  without which there simply would not be such a thing as a Wikipedia.  The sprawling 1632 articles sure do seem to lack an overhaul, and some pruning, but this is a more nuanced response than hitting the delete button. AfD is not for cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: The article 1632 series is already tagged as "too long," so I do not see merging as an option. The series is notable and includes at least one best-selling science fiction novel per the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/19/business/media-publisher-s-web-books-spur-hardcover-sales.html?sec=technology&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/A/Assaults&pagewanted=2. Per , our goal is not to eliminate verifiable information about notable subjects from Wikipedia. If it cannot be shoehorned into 1632 series then leave it here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)