Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biunoctium

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Systematic element name, useful content already merged, no consensus for actual deletion but I think that does not really matter. Sandstein (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biunoctium

Biunoctium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

non-notable hypothetical chemical element (element 218), there are no other Wikipedia pages for elements with atomic number > 140 Warut (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. While current science does predict that this element probably exists, it'll probably be quite some time before there are even any reasonable conjectures about its properties, to say nothing of actual data (which are probably at least a decade off, if not more). What information is given in the article can certainly be recreated when there's actually something to say here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. In fact, it's very unlikely that there exist any elements with atomic numbers > 138 since the speed of a 1s electron would exceed the speed of light. See Untriseptium#Significance. Warut (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Systematic element name and Redirect. Since this is an official IUPAC name for a hypothetical element it should be mentioned in Wikipedia. Since it's hypothetical this mention should be fairly basic. Redirect to the page that describes this naming system.Filceolaire (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've copied accross the reference which was the only useful bit here. Ready to Redirect now. Filceolaire (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC).

Hope that this will not encourage people to create redirect pages for every IUPAC element name since there are infinitely many of them. Warut (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per Filceolaire, but only because redirects are cheap. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a completely theoretical element far beyond the current capabilities of science to produce, with no useful information available about it. A very unlikely search term, so no need for a redirect in my opinion - unless we do want to produce redirects for every single IUPAC systematic name! ~ mazca ^talk 22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Filceolaire. Being theoretical or hypothetical does not preclude an encyclopedic article, but this particular topic is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.