Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unhexennium

Stub about an element that has not yet been discovered, and probably will not be for a long, long time. (It's in period 9 and has an atomic number over 50 greater than that of the highest discovered element.) Eric119 05:05, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The element doesn't even exist, and it's doubtful it ever will. --Slowking Man 05:18, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Obviously, this is the stuff you need in your pocket to remove VfD tags and to get rid of political double standards on Michael Moore films. Geogre 14:31, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * For curiosity, what is the atomic number of the largest chemical element it is possible to produce?? Has this atomic number been proven to be impossible?? 66.245.111.32 18:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google pulls up zero hits for this nomenclature. I would be cautious of statements such as "it's doubtful it ever will" (be created) - nuclear physics has nowhere near exhausted its capacity to produce heavy elements, but there is some distance to go to reach element 169. To answer 66.245, there is no theoretical limit to the largest atomic number it is possible to create. Higher-numbered elements (those above lead) become increasingly unstable with size, and one of the requisite measures of whether a particle exists is was it possible to measure a lifetime before the particle decayed into lighter elements. There is certainly a practical limit, based on current technology, but I have never heard discussion of any sort of theoretical limit. Denni &#9775; 19:36, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. See Periodic table (extended) - the names for upcoming, yet-to-be-discovered elements are official and have gone forward to much further than this.  Unless you want to delete all of them.  RickK 19:39, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Er, "delete all of them"? This is the only one higher than 120 that has a page. So, I say delete unless you want to create all of them. I agree the names are official but we can go arbitrarily high with them (e.g., septunnilenntrisepthexium). Eric119 19:59, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete all of them if any others do exist. Delete all articles for what doesn't yet exist, so far as is known. unless there is a strong reason to keep a particular article because what it references is mentioned reasonably often in speculative writing. I imagine a bot working to create articles on all yet-to-be-discovered elements. :-( Jallan 21:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Does a "strong keep" mean more than a normal one? If so, I vote for a strong delete since this name is just an extension of a system that has the capacity to name non-existent elements of any atomic number.
 * Delete - it's a dicdef at best. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete the placeholder unless there is something concrete to say about it now. When the element is discovered, it will be renamed (likely for the discoverer).  Any article about the element will have to be created at that new name. Rossami 23:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Keeping interesting undiscovered elements should be a no brainer. id est Island of stability elements, elements whose discovery was retracted or remains controversial or those which have pop culture references. This one fails any reasonable test. As an additional note - naming can take a long time - decades - between first possible discovery and final confirmation. This means that placeholder names could be in use for a long time, and have significant literature associated with them. Retracted discoveries have occured since the early 20th century. Stirling Newberry 01:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Dittaeva 10:16, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this one, unless someone can come up with something notable about it that distinguishes it from similar not-yet-created transuranics. I think it's reasonable to have articles on such elements if they are in some way notable- e.g. if there's an active project to look for/create them, or they have some theoretical significance or predicted properties, or (as Jallan suggested) literary references. This has none of the above.-FZ 18:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)