Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ennseptnilium

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 of the debate was delete. I see very little purpose in redirecting this since nobody is going to look up a possible name for elemenet number 970. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ennseptnilium

Crystalballing to the ridiculous. By the time this is discovered/synthesised, we'll probably all be dead Sceptre ^(Talk) 13:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Merge per below. PJM 14:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• biniloctium (Bno)
• Merge to Systematic element name#Examples. by the way some hypothetical element articles exist see Unbitrium --Melaen 15:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if we take these things up to 970, we might as well go to infinity. They can be kept if there is something to say about them, eg. Unbitrium features in a fictional context. Kappa 17:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A 970-proton nucleus is a total fantasy. (The island of stability is way back at 126-protons or so. A 970-proton nucleus is going to have an unmeasurably short half-life. Put another way, this element can never be synthesised). Sliggy 19:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- Crystal ball stuff. Reyk 22:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- Seems worthless to me, looks like someone made it because it was hypothetically mentioned on Systematic element name M@$+@ Ju 23:15, 31 December 2005 (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.