Talk:NGC 5

Justification for the redirect?

Deleting verifiable information and sources to redirect to a list with a minimal, unsourced entry for NGC 5 seems like a bad idea. I am tempted to revert, but will ask for justification first. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark viking, yes, you can revert. It was a bold edit. I've slowly been going through many NGC objects, and upon seeing that they don't be general notability guidelines, nominating them for deletion. I don't want to clog AfD, so I convert them to redirects initially, but if a contributor disagrees with my actions, I will bring it to AfD. NGC 5, like many NGC objects (and stars in general) is only listed in very large catalogues, lists, and amateur websites that aren't reliable and take their information from the large lists anyway. This is my general reasoning. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. I think NGC 4 and NGC 5 are in a similar situation, so will wait for community consensus at its AfD. If NGC 4 is kept, I will revert this one. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NGC 4 discussion was useful. Although deleted, the NED and SIMBAD database came out as good alternatives to Google Scholar. Looking up NGC 5, NED shows 22 references and SIMBAD shows 19. Some of the refs are catalogs or surveys, but some look like regular papers. But at least one paper I looked at had NGC 5 as a false positive; the paper instead discussed NGC 5XXX objects. So counts may not be reliable. Given all that, I'll leave this as a redirect. There is clearly verifiable information to be had that could be put into the list article and this redirect preserves that. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark viking, the hire number of false positives for the low number NGCs is the reason that for now, I've switched my counting for higher number NGC objects in the thousands for which no false positives will appear. You're welcome to keep track of my progress to make sure I don't mess up. I'm afraid no one monitors the more obscure NGC so if my decision is in error, it's possible no one will correct me. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]