Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untribium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Untribium)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect systematic element name
NN hypothetical element. 9 googles. Didn't we go through a bunch of these before? ~~ N (t/c) 23:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are tons more: Special:Contributions/24.103.109.9. ~~ N (t/c) 00:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect all to systematic element name, unless a credible claim has been made for its synthysis. ManoaChild 01:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect. Wasn't this settled before? --Titoxd 01:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect; Misplaced | Hatter 04:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, unless there is something to say about it beyond its obvious predictable properties (e.g. claims of discovery or island of stability properties. Warofdreams 14:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Others : Unbibium, Unbiquadium, Unbipentium, Unbiseptium, Unbioctium, Unbiennium, Untrinilium, Untriunium, Untribium 132.205.3.20 16:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: signifcant ones are the last classically stable elements, and elemtns in the island of stability, and should not be deleted. 132.205.3.20 16:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand this comment. What does stability have to do with this? There are a number of very unstable elements on the current periodic table. As far as I can see, the relevant distinction is between synthesized and unsynthesized. ManoaChild 19:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)][reply]
- I meant to say: which have been synthesized and which have not yet been synthesized. ManoaChild 21:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Theoretically speaking, the island of stability is a very important aim for synthesizers, to prove theory versus experiment. And so are the last chemically stable elements. These are marks to aim for to test theory against reality. The other elemetns are just targets to get your name in the paper. 132.205.45.148 17:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I continue to be perplexed by your argument. There are a number of unstable elements in the peroidic table, and they are very important for theoretical reasons and as building blocks for higher numbered elements. It is very likely that elements in the island of stability will be extremely unstable too. I simply don't understand your argument. ManoaChild 11:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Theoretically speaking, the island of stability is a very important aim for synthesizers, to prove theory versus experiment. And so are the last chemically stable elements. These are marks to aim for to test theory against reality. The other elemetns are just targets to get your name in the paper. 132.205.45.148 17:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to say: which have been synthesized and which have not yet been synthesized. ManoaChild 21:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand this comment. What does stability have to do with this? There are a number of very unstable elements on the current periodic table. As far as I can see, the relevant distinction is between synthesized and unsynthesized. ManoaChild 19:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)][reply]
- I'm redirecting the votes to here for these. 132.205.3.20 16:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: signifcant ones are the last classically stable elements, and elemtns in the island of stability, and should not be deleted. 132.205.3.20 16:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT one solution is to leave all the pages up to and including the last chemically stable element, plus the one just after it (the first chemically unstable, or possibly chemically non-existable element) 132.205.3.20 16:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT potential redirect destination: Periodic table (extended) ? 132.205.3.20 17:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These names have been systematically established and are therefore not nn. -Hmib 19:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to systematic element name. Not notable on its own. Optichan 20:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Unbibium (There has been a scholarly article written about it.) Redirect the rest until we have something other than the probable ground state electron configuration to report. Caerwine 04:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to systematic element name. *drew 21:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to systematic element name. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - it's a placeholder - agree with above. - Tεxτurε 20:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.