Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Binilnilium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Binilnilium

While technically correct, do we really want all would-be atomic names from here to infinity in the wikipedia? Radiant! 22:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Do Latin numbers go up to infinity? Anyway delete unless there's something special about this one, which seems unlikely. Kappa 22:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • They do when expressed this way (which isn't really Latin). Uncle G 03:50, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable imaginary topic. Gazpacho 23:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete extrapolationcruft. (Not a good neologism but we need some term for all these articles created by applying mathematical induction to some naming convention). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Having placeholders for probably discovered but unnamed elements or believed to be soon to be discovered elements is one thing. But this is just silly. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not redirect to a page that contains the IUPAC naming convention for undiscovered or discovered and yet to be officially named elements? 132.205.15.43 02:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Systematic element name Transuranium element since its atomic number is greater than 92. The name was proposed by IUPAC btw so it's not really a hoax as such. Megan1967 02:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Kappa suggested redirect is superior, changed as above. Megan1967 23:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto on the redirect to Transuranium element, since an ad nauseum page doesn't exist. ;-) — RJH 04:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not an article, unhelpful. Wyss 11:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Crayonning on the walls. --Wetman 11:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - great so now we deal with temporary names of things not yet discovered! Brookie 19:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlikely to be discovered in any of our lifetimes. Do not redirect, unless it's somehow a good idea to redirect the eighty-mumble other undiscovered elements that precede this, too. —Korath (Talk) 01:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.