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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unbiunium[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to extended periodic table (as do other unnotable synthetic undiscovered elements). This article basically just includes trivial information (the g-block information can be found on the extended periodic table article; the "naming" section is boilerplate; the "target-projectile etc." section consists of nothing but "reaction yet to be attempted"). However, a journal does talk about it. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd be inclined to keep this one. The target projectile combinations seem noteworthy enough and were added by an editor that has been adding reliable info to related articles. ChemNerd (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the element is fo sufficient theoretical interest to deserve a separate article. I've added the reference to the text. Nergaal (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2011 (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.