Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbibium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to an unspecified target. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Untribium. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unbibium[edit]
This article has been tagged for deletion by User:132.205.3.20, but he seems not to have been able to figure out how to finish up the deletion process. The article has been nominated for deletion once before: see Talk:Unbibium. No vote --Carnildo 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Until something is known about these very heavy transuranium elements I tend to vote merge into a list. As of now, the heaviest element is element 114, with 115 and 116 awaiting confirmation. There is not much point in a fancy infobox when such elementary properties as the half-life or decay energy are unknown because the element hasn't been made at all. Pilatus 22:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT I tend to think that the elements in the island of stability, and last classically stable elements (139, 138, 137, 136) are deserving of articles on their own. 132.205.46.188 01:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We could mention that fact in a paragraph on List of undiscovered transuranium elements. Pilatus 09:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT I tend to think that the elements in the island of stability, and last classically stable elements (139, 138, 137, 136) are deserving of articles on their own. 132.205.46.188 01:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: potential merge source Unbiquadium was speedily deleted moments ago 132.205.46.188 01:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a fair bit of such entries left. As I said, recreate those systematic element names that are missing and have them point to List of undiscovered transuranium elements until they are reported and merit an entry of their own. Pilatus 11:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please create all such redirects (up to, say, 200?) because that will stop people from recreating them. A neat table would be nice. Delete or redirect. Radiant_>|< 13:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment The extended periodic table once had links up to element 218 until a consensus for that page was reached to delete the red links so as to discourage the creation of empty stubs. Caerwine 18:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please create all such redirects (up to, say, 200?) because that will stop people from recreating them. A neat table would be nice. Delete or redirect. Radiant_>|< 13:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- There are a fair bit of such entries left. As I said, recreate those systematic element names that are missing and have them point to List of undiscovered transuranium elements until they are reported and merit an entry of their own. Pilatus 11:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep possibly Merge: There has been at least one article in a scientific jourmnal dealing with its theoretical properties, so it not that we don't know anything about eka-thorium, we just don't know very much. Granted, the amount of information known is minimal enough that merging with other theoretical period 8 elements into a single article may be a reasonable option, especially since the elementbox templates aren't really set up at the moment to handle anything past period 7. Caerwine 18:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT see related vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Untribium (Untribium and others)
- I propose we merge this VfD into that one. 132.205.45.148 17:08, 27 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.