This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Ophiucus".
- 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.
From article talk page
- Not referenced. Created based solely on Ophiucus III and Star Trek: Star Charts. --Alan del Beccio 06:24, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Only if the Star or the System was specifically referenced. Other then that is Not referenced, and should also be put here probably. Delete. - AJHalliwell 21:03, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Delete Tobyk777 02:26, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and move to Ophiucus system. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 02:45, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Comic as a source
Excuse me, but I believe this article is not as definitive as it could be.
In the opening paragraph, it is mentioned that this system contains "at least" six planets. There are, in fact, seven planets--as seen in the Official Star Trek Comic Series "Alpha Omega" (Issue #134 pg. 1054 frame 6) by Johnathan Queezack (declared canon by Tori Mason on June 13th, 1993, 10:43 AM EST).
In this light, I will be editing this article to maintain proper definition and precise information for all Trekkies curious of the composition of the Ophiucus III star system.
If anyone would like to challenge the canonicity of my edit, please be mature and discuss your issue with my information in this talk page and allow me to respond before making any changes to this edit.
Thank you for your time,
- Please see the Memory Alpha Canon Policy, you will note that both Paramount and Memory Alpha do not consider content from comic books, even officially licensed ones, to be canon. Therefore, it cannot go in the canon portion of this article. A background apocrypha note with the information from the comic would be acceptable and useful, though. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:37, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
- The source given feels a little too precise to just be a genuine mistake about what is or isn't accepted around here. So, yeah, thanks for having a little fun with us, but don't let this become vandalism, OK? -- Cid Highwind 23:51, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Suggested for deletion by Throwback per this discussion, though starting a PfD as there was discussion about a prior deletion effort that should be archived here. 31dot (talk) 21:20, October 21, 2012 (UTC)