Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsepthexium


 * 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 insufficient consensus to delete so I'll call this a redirect to transactinide element, although I don't think it's a likely search term. Article contains nothing worth merging as far as I can see, since all transactinide elements with atomic number 115+ are believed to unstable, radioactive and undiscovered. That goes for number 176 as well. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsepthexium
Delete. Article creator claims this element exists, and removed a prod on that basis, but only evidence for the element's existence seems to be misunderstanding of a site that speculatively lists not-yet-created elements. Some as-yet-uncreated superheavy elements may warrant their own articles for one reason or another but no argument has been given for why this particular one should be among them. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements.--Calair 00:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Transactinide element. (vote altered slightly) --MacRusgail 01:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Transactinide element. I agree with Femto's comments on the Elements project talkpage cited by Calair above.  Number 176 is so far from existing even for a moment in a particle accelerator that it's not encyclopedic to discuss it, or any atomic number much higher than 116, as if it were a "real" element with properties that a reader might experience.  Barno 02:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per above -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 02:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete this article does warrant a page on Wikipedia. It depicts a factual atom, and its source is correct.  Visit it for yourself--it only list known elements.  It is absurd to suggest that such an article should be deleted, because it represtents the very issues that Wikipedia was created to handle. Theonlyedge 13:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC) PS: I'm sure if I'm supposed to say "do not delete" or something else
 * You usually say "Keep". However, I think your sentiment is clear.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have visited the site. It has an entry for all element numbers up to #202, including many others which have not yet been created. Note that for elements that have been created, it lists a discovery date; no such date is listed for #176. Furthermore, if you check the entry for #118 and view image properties, you will see the image tagged as 'Place-holder, no picture available of Ununoctium'. The (very similar) image associated with #176 is similarly tagged 'Placeholder', as indeed are all the ones past #118. I'm not clear about what part of the page gives you the impression that #176 has been created and #177 hasn't. --Calair 21:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect (rather, just redirect, since there isn't much to merge). "Known", as in "not completely fictional"... but still only "hypothetical". There's no reason to have a separate article. Femto 14:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect as no source or reference has been put forwards supporting its factual existence (and, following superheavy elements somewhat, this is way way way beyond where science was a month ago, by around 60 atomic units...). If you're going to claim something as factual which is extreme and beyond boundaries, it requires better proof than this.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 'DELETE' and create new REDIRECT to Systematic element name like all the other superhigh element names, the others redirect to Systematic element name, so this one should too. 132.205.44.134 23:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete as this element has never been made, and there next closest "real" element is 116! Olin 04:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * DELETE as it has no basis in chemistry as we are not even close to synthesizing it yet. Ryan Jones 09:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * DELETE the reference goes upto Binilnilium 200 while scientists had to stop with 117 or so.--Stone 09:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * DELETE, DO NOT MERGE, its purely fictional and just the result of a program that calculates orbital occupancies. This atom will never ever be produced let alone be analyzed. Cacycle 11:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Oh, now, don't say it will never be produced. There are few physical limits on the ability to build bigger heavy ion accellerators, and the techniques which have rather reliably let us produce up to the low 1-teens (116 so far) should extend out a good long ways.  At the current rate of progress, we would expect to see it synthesized around year 2200, assuming that continuing to produce new artificial elements out past the Island of stability is seen as worthwhile for any purpose.  Georgewilliamherbert 17:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. It has never been manufactured.  It is not close to being manufactured.  No one is trying to manufacture it.  There is nothing to distinguish this element from any other arbitrary superheavy element that has never been manufactured.  Truly the chemical equivalent of a garage band. Shimmin 14:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as A3: this "article has no content whatsoever, and i suspect it is merely an attempt to improve the Google rating of the linked site. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * After doing further research, I have learned that this element does not exist. There is no reason to keep it on Wikipedia.  I'm not sure if I'm supposed to change my above "Keep" vote, but i'd like to change it to Delete.  If it is merged, it so should the other atoms up to 200. I'd say. Theonlyedge 02:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're allowed to change your vote - and thanks for rechecking. --Calair 03:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * See also talk at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry and Talk:Periodic_table. Olin 17:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete M o e   ε  02:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. Better with the other. --Jon Calla 03:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and also delete element 136, while there are other articles like 138, 122, those have a Significance section but 176 is not significant in any way. 218.102.218.126 09:06, 1 April 2006 (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.