Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbitrium

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 Extended periodic table. Big Dom 00:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unbitrium

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to extended periodic table (as do other unnotable synthetic undiscovered elements). This article basically includes just trivial information; the predicted atomic mass is unsourced. The "trans-periodic table" has a complete lack of resemblance and relevance to the standard periodic table (link: [1]). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. Until the time when there is scientific activity in terms of attempted synthesis, relevant theoretical study, etc. to add to the article, it is best redirected to extended periodic table. ChemNerd (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. No purpose to it having it's own article space. Anyone actually searching for info can just view what current info there is at the extended periodic table.AerobicFox (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, with a nod to the fictitious acknowledgement in Star Trek. Unfortunately, beyond that, I don't see this working in WP yet. =( --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has information like the Star Trek info in the bottom and is verifiable. 174.112.211.143 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's a fictional use of unbitrium, and besides, the trans-periodic table has no resemblance at all to the normal periodic table (see the link I gave above). If that's all there is to say, we can redirect the article and place the Star Trek info in the articles mentioned by Guy Macon. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. star trek trivia can be placed in the extended periodic table article, i suppose.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extended periodic table. The star trek trivia belongs in List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles and/or List of Star Trek materials, not in Extended periodic table. Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it is science related, and elements 122 and 124 have articles. Fotaun (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If someone is reading through Wikipedia articles, its convenient to have continuity of articles up to the edge of understanding. Fotaun (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note

Element 122 is notable because of Amnon Marinov's claim he discovered it in natural thorium samples.

Element 124 is notable because of GANIL's claim to have synthesized Element 124 nuclei.

Element 126 is notable for being located at the theoretical island of stability.

Element 137 is notable because, as Richard Feynman noted, in the Bohr model, anthing larger would require electrons that exceed the speed of light.

Elements 123, 125, and 127 through 136 are not notable.

Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh, and to finish up:

Element 119 is notable because of Lougheed et al's attempted synthesis.

Element 120 is notable because of JINR's attempted synthesis, GANIL's claim of synthesis and GSI's and RIKEN's planned future attempts at synthesis.

Element 121's notability was disputed by me, but its AfD was closed as keep.

Elements 138 and above are not notable.

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for creating Template:Infobox unbitrium, and for introducing me to the magical land of Meta-WP, where templates are created for articles which are deleted; I hope the template will be used at some future date. Anarchangel (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Template:Infobox unbipentium for another example - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbipentium (2nd nomination). (Incidentally, although the 1st nomination ended with redirect, it was for some reason not followed through!) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is simply not going to be considered significantly until unbiunium (121-ium) or unbibium (122-ium) get synthesized. Even though this is my first edit at AfD, I have something to say about this element (123-ium) and other transactinides: other than their discovery, they are pretty much non-notable because they are so radioactive. (Thanks, La-138!) FRE YWA 07:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Other things aside, high radioactivity could be an argument to keep. Fotaun (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but by that same token, we ought to keep every period 8 element and period 9 element, just because they are all highly radioactive. That's obviously not going to happen (editors are not that logical), but keeping this (which has no useful information at the moment - no claims or attempts at synthesis, for example, which is a huge blow to the article's notability) might start off a chain reaction of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untribium. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the consensus is pretty clear now. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For a fairer assessment, the article needs to add some of the theoretical physics work done on this element. Is there a nuclear physicist that can help us? Fotaun (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge- I think at the moment Unbitrium is quite interesting _{I realise that alone won't stop it being deleted} though stubbish, whereas extended periodic table is very dense and overly technical. The Extended periodic table article doesn't mention the word Unbitrium, so it would be confusing for a reader to end up there from the redirect. Does the claim that Unbitrium would be the most stable make it notable? If we decide this isn't notable then merge, but it would be a shame to lose the information altogether.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would think that it's not too notable (as it mentions that Ubt-326 would be the most stable Ubt isotope and not the most stable isotope) - unbihexium could really be the most stable isotope of all elements in this region, which is why it wasn't even nominated for AfD. Extended periodic table does link to systematic element name, which explains the naming. (As of now, elements with Z > 139 redirect to systematic element name and those with Z ≤ 139 that aren't notable redirect to extended periodic table, but you could bring this up at WT:ELEM for discussion.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2011 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.