Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extended periodic table (large version)


 * 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   keep. If someone wishes to merge it with any other article, please take it up on this article's talk page.  Wifione  Message 12:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Extended periodic table (large version)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All the encyclopedic material is already covered at Extended periodic table. Although we should keep the larger extended periodic table template, it doesn't need its own article to host it. HGK745 (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. We also have articles like periodic table (large version). These articles have to be taken into consideration when AfDing only one of a number of similar articles. Just throwing this out there. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ALLORNOTHING, and besides I would support deletion of those articles as well for the same reasons. --HGK745 (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Although we should keep the larger extended periodic table template, it doesn't need its own article to host it - An unused (untransposed) template is up for deletion for that reason alone. There is no argument to keep it then. As you are sort of admitting now in this post. -DePiep (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep to the reason above. if I find something that makes it worthy of deletion, I'll change my response ~ihaveamac &#91;talk|contribs&#93; 04:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep unless I am misunderstanding something. Atomic weights are included in Extended periodic table (large version) but not in Extended periodic table so the nomination is puzzling. Also, it contains more elements than Periodic table (large version). Surely if any such article is to kept it should be this one? If they all should be deleted as suggested above, should we be deleting Periodic table as well? I think this is all very strange. Thincat (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The reasoning leads to merge conclusion, not deletion. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding: Whether or not the large tables should be merged into the regular article, Article size gives guidelines about that. I see no absolute solution, both current split and possible merge are compromises. -DePiep (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Because this contains no information that isn't already in the several other periodic table articles. The table adds a lot of non-existent/undiscovered elements to Periodic table (large version), but it doesn't contribute any non-duplicate information about any elements that exist or have been studied. All it adds is a list of numebrs and systematic names that anyone could calculate. What is the value of this page, or more specifically of its bottom two rows? People who argue "if we delete this we should delete periodic table" are missing the point: a more accurate comparison would be if I created an article "Extended table of Presidents of the USA" with all the current presidents of the USA and then added to the bottom "50th president", "51st president", "52nd president", ..., would that really be a useful addition to Wikipedia? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * already in the several other periodic table articles: that is the point of the page: it brings together information, uniquely even. numbers and systematic names anyone could calculate - Can I calculate the Pyykkö variant? Can I build a table extension Glenn T. Seaborg got the Nobel Prize for? -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Those bottom two rows are cited to reliable sources (e.g. Pyykkö) which calculated the positions of these elements (confirming Fricke's earlier calculations, BTW), and this calculation is even quoted in Haire (used as a textbook, IIRC). I don't think any reliable sources has (or could have) calculated future Presidents of the United States, OTOH. Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the calculations are quite complicated, so I don't think anyone could calculate them. Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per StringTheory11, DePiep, Ihaveamac and Thincat. Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note Yes, I created this list. Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into the Extended periodic table article; I see no problem in creating a subsection there with this more detailed version. Since the extended table article is not very broad, putting this there would not affect it too much. Nergaal (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nergaal, how would the merge look like? I tried Talk:Extended periodic table/sandbox, but is that a good page? The large form on a page is really, eh, large. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. Keep since this encyclopedia should have the extended periodic table in full forms, both in Aufbau and Pyykkö (as the AfD page has). Repeat: WP should have all of it. It is a layout (tablesize) issue. Now if it can be merged convincingly (see WP:PAGESIZE), they could be merged. An example I made at Talk:Extended periodic table/sandbox. Layout tricks used: wide template, legend outside (=stable in page); not: fold. The layout should always result in a useful page. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2012 (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.