Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eye of Harmony


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star  Mississippi  13:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Eye of Harmony

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Niche element of Doctor Who franchise. Our article is pure plot summary with a tiny unreferenced attempt at analysis ("Scientific context"). Practically unreferenced - one footnote is a note, the other links to a BBC plot summary, and there is an EL to a fan wiki. My BEFORE revealed just a few passing mentions in some plot summaries. WP:GNG fail. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy,  and United Kingdom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Cannot be redirected to a specific episode of the series, due to its many appearances. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 16:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG. There aren't third-party sources with significant coverage for this element. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although 2-3 times the Eye of Harmony has been an important plot in Doctor Who stories, it is not something that has ever attracted much coverage or recognition beyond the series. Indeed even within the series what it was and what it did was not that consistent and most of the development of it has come in expanded media or fan works. As such I don't think it merits its own Wikipedia article. If a redirect was being looked for Rassilon might be an option since in its first television appearance -The Deadly Assassin - it is closely associated with him and is mentioned in his article. Alternately, the Time Lord article's section on technology mentions it so that might be a good option as well. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.