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 redirect to Group (Periodic table). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical series[edit]

Chemical series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I don't think the "term" 'chemical series' merits an article - it is not a proper scientific term, it is just a turn of phrase, a use figure of speech in chemistry. See the talk page of the article for more discussion.

My proposal is to turn this article in a redirect to Group (Periodic table) --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. Content is redundant to Group (Periodic table). Feeeshboy 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. Part Deux 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is Articles for deletion. Only nominate an article for deletion if an administrator hitting a delete button is what you want. Neither article merger nor simply editing an article into a redirect require administrator tools. They don't even require that one have an account. Uncle G 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, sorry, but if I want a bunch of opinions quickly, this seems to be the most practical way to go. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article's talk page is the place for gathering such opinions, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the way to advertise a talk page discussion to a wider audience. As for your wanting them quickly: Wikipedia does not operate to a deadline. Uncle G 09:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for telling me. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• neutral I'm not so sure that this is unnotable. I've usually heard these referred to as 'groups' in my chem. classes (both organic and inorganic), but if sourcing can be found then this term may be notable. It's not a synonym for 'group' because not all groups share unique properties, IE alkali metals, alkali earth metals and noble gasses all share notable properties with their group-mates (the series, apparently). Some other groups don't have much in common from period to period (say group 4 or 13). The fact that halogens all form strong mineral acids and have high electronegativity means that they're more than an arbitrary grouping. That said, unless someone marginally important or more has used the term (I've seen them called 'special groups' before, never chemical series) it's, while still interesting, not notable. Wintermut3 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect either to Group (Periodic table), which is what the current scope of the article is, or to Periodic table, which also discusses the horizontal (period) series. --Polaron | Talk 07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to group per nom. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Nothing useful or special on this page that couldn't be merged into there, and no reason that info on this topic should be scattered. DMacks 03:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.