Talk: NGC 5139

This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "NGC 5139".

• If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
• If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
• If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".

In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.

Deletion rationale

This has gone uncited for almost a year now. Recently I have been going through removing uncited notes and putting them on talk pages so as to encourage citation, or simply removing material we cannot prove to be accurate (or even real). In this case, the entire article is what it uncited, so that isn't an option. We've gone since January with an {{incite}} slapped on this, and it hasn't brought us anything. It is my hope that this PfD encourages a citation, and the article can be kept, but if not it should be removed. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 07:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Delete, if no citation is found. It can always be undeleted if a citation is found later. 31dot 13:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only VOY map showing the Beta quadrant was the one depicting a possible route back home (mid-season 7, I think). This map was reprinted in the Star Trek: Star Charts. If that print is an accurate representation of the graphic used in the production (and really contains the tag "NGC 5139" somewhere), then that would be a valid article according to our policies. -- Cid Highwind 14:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking our standard for citation in our articles seems to include pinning down at least one episode (possible with an "et al" tacked on the end). Should we not have that standard with this article, and can't we come up with a screencap of it? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 15:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not suggesting anything else - just giving hints as to where one might look for the possible citation in the first place. -- Cid Highwind 15:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering why no action has been taken on this PfD, one way or another. It would seem that there is little interest in keeping it, however, or at least no interest in doing the research to put on it.--31dot 18:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, one vote a consensus does not make. So, at the moment, it's really going to be kept, but I've left it open in the hopes that someone can look in those episodes that Cid mentioned above and look for the chart in question. -- Sulfur 22:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to question our fearless leaders, but I point you to our deletion policy:

Note: A deletion discussion is not a voting procedure with the result being determined by simply counting votes for and against a suggestion. Instead, the final decision to keep or delete a page should always be based on existing corresponding policies or, if such don't exist, on a "consensus". A discussion as described above is a way to allow an administrator to make a correct decision.

Consensus is only required if a policy does not exist. In this case, a policy does, articles need to have citations and be from canon. No citation has been found for this page, no evidence it is canon, so a consensus is actually not required for deletion. While in the case of Warf, we do not have specific rules on how to handle degrees of difference in spelling mistakes, we have a clear policy when it comes to citation, and this article does not meet it. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 23:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You made me find my Star Charts in that huge pile of books over there... and, in fact, the map I mentioned above does contain a label "NGC 5139". It is the first "Delta Quadrant" page (p.76-77), with a map of the galaxy, showing the past and projected flight path of USS Voyager. A "timeline" below the map shows Voyager's position on stardate 54001.9 - which, I assume, can somehow be linked to the episode this map appeared in. -- Cid Highwind 23:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That would put it in the middle of the Unimatrix episodes. Which were season end/season start. I don't have any VOY on DVD at all, so I won't be a huge help on checking the episodes. -- Sulfur 23:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

File:Voyager flight path Astrometrics.jpg

To the right is the map I'm talking about. I'm no VOY expert, so I'll leave updating the page with an actual citation to someone else. -- Cid Highwind 00:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Astrometrics made it's entrance in VOY: "Year of Hell", which means this would have been the first episode to show this style of map. I'm going to say delete, because even if we wanted to use that image for a citation, the resolution just isn't there for any kind of meaningful interpretation. -- Kooky 02:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Usual drill: Bring back if citation is found.– Watching... ^listening... 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin resolution

Deleted: It has been nearly 3 months with no resolution. It can always be undeleted if this comes up again, legitimately. --Alan del Beccio 04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, undeleted 15 minutes later, making this a keep. -- Cid Highwind 09:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well someone has to do some decision making around here.... --Alan del Beccio 07:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What happened to trying to get an episode citation? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 09:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I found that it was linked to other pages that used the same citation. I undeleted it seeing as there might be a chance of it being cited, which is what I was asking CaptMike about seeing as he created the article, but not part of the actual deletion discussion, I thought he could point out himself where he got the info. If you look at the Beta Quadrant article, it uses the same citation as this article, and in addition refers to the Carina Arm and Norma Arms in addition to 5139. Perhaps those two articles are equally invalid? --Alan del Beccio 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be. I only found this one because it was in the category of articles needing citation. If the other wasn't, I probably didn't find it. While I don't mind adding something that was so small it practically could not be seen, but we have production/background information on what it was, as in this case. What concerns me is adding information we can't even pin down what episode it was in the first place (where we currently still are and have been for months with this one). I guess the other might be invalid as well, for the same reason. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going with the original decision to delete. As I attempted to contact the original creator, they were unable to come up with a citation source. So like I said before, it can always be undeleted if someone comes up with a source later on. --Alan del Beccio 07:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)