Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untriquadium

 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. – ABCD 00:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Untriquadium
One more time... another element stub created just today. It's not speediable because this particular one was not ever created (to my knowledge). This was listed on Millionth topic pool, and somebody clicked through and made it. Reasons for deletion are detailed in the earlier debates. (Binilnilium, Element extrapolation, and Death by element stubs). Eric119 19:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete is okay by me; alternatively, redirect to Systematic element name or something else appropriate if there's a chance this might be recreated by someone else. -- Infrogmation 20:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect as suggested. Nothing useful known of this element. Dbiv 22:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirect to prevent recreation (maybe mass-redirect the lot of them since the joke is starting to fall flat by now) Radiant_* 22:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I like element stubs, but I don't know about this particular one - number 134 hasn't been discovered yet. Redirect. NazismIsntCool 06:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. articles on the higher transuranics, ie past about 120, are sort of pointless. ping 08:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, no, delete and don't redirect! Then recreate as the millionth article so I win the pool with this smart-ass entry. Grue 16:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, the delete again when it is recreated. Jayjg (talk) 05:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, we don't need articles on every element which might theoretically exist but hasn't been created yet. (Maybe for a few which are likely to be created in the next few years). If this isn't deleted as an article, it becomes invalid for the millionth article pool, and should be deleted there.-gadfium 09:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and don't redirect, for the same reasons I gave previously. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 11:43, 4 Apr 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.