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. dbenbenn | talk 23:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unquadnilium, Unbiseptium, Unquadunium, Unquadbium, Unquadtrium, Unquadquadium, Unquadpentium, Unquadhexium, Unquadseptium, Unquadoctium, Unquadennium, Unpentnilium, Unpentunium, Unpentbium

[edit]

More extrapolationcruft, in line with the binilnilium nomination. All information on these pages is boilerplate or simply mathematical extrapolation, which could be carried out ad infinitum. (And why pages on these particular non-existant elements?) Eric119 01:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete (again). These placeholder names are for elements which do not exist and have never been created. Should they ever be, they will be given a more formal name. Let's wait until then to create an article. Denni ☯ 02:33, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Redirects to Systematic element name ~~Transuranium element~~, since these atomic number are greater than 92. The names are proposed by IUPAC btw so it's not really a hoax as such, see [1] . Megan1967 03:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect amended as per above. Megan1967 00:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I second the Redirect. (Still trying to figure out how they can guess the appearance of an undiscovered element...) — RJH 04:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete imaginary topic, do not redirect. Gazpacho 05:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect it may seem odd to some, but there are people who will look up such bizarre words. Joshuaschroeder 07:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redirection would be unhelpful until such a thing exists (WP not a word construction manual), vapor-element. Wyss 11:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since the problem with redirecting is that there is no practical end to the series (e.g. quaddiseptium, etc). Radiant! 11:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Systematic element name, which describes the scheme by which these names are constructed—and redirects are cheap. Do not redirect to transuranium element, because these elements exist as nothing but figments of an overzealous imagination, and such a redirect would be confusing. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Denni. If/when these elements are found/created, they will eventually be given a new name anyway.--jag123 21:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. These articles can be recreated when the elements in question are observed. -- The Anome 00:03, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No useful information. Redirects considered harmful in this case, as if there is a list of all these elements, they will be coloured as blue links, suggesting we have separate articles for them. The chances of anyone actually searching for these names is fairly remote. sjorford:// 09:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good point, delete, no redirect. Kappa 19:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, do not redirect. —Korath (Talk) 02:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, no redirect. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, no redirects. Carrp | Talk 22:07, 18 Feb 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.