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.
Delete - fictional vanity element, we should not have sciencecruft here, it is misleading to put this trivia alongside real elements. Trollminator 20:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep as with all the elements that have been reported as discovered. DCEdwards1966 20:52, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Strong keep; it's been synthesised, which kind of torpedoes "fictional", and the concept of a "vanity element" is nonsensical. Shimgray 20:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's sciencecruft. It is not officially recognized, Googling give just Wikipedia mirrors. Give some credible references for these vanity articles. Trollminator 21:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Much of vfd is clear abuse by the lister. Mark Richards 22:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I thought I already voted on this one, I must be having a hard time keeping up with all the abuse here. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 22:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly encyclopedic. Abuse of VfD. jni 09:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The lister is only being consistent, not abusive. It is clear to me that all of these are placeholder names. A little more tolerance would be nice. The Steve 10:48, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, I'm not. If you think one doesn't belong here, then none of them do. It makes perfect sense to list them all, and is hardly an abuse of Vfd. It isn't clear to me that these elements deserve a page each. The lister himself suggested a single page of Elements that do not exist, although I might be tempted to say Elements that have not yet been named. Break them out into the correct name when (and if) it happens, which will probably correspond roughly to the time that an appreciable amount of research and information is available on them (your notability threshhold, as it were). I voted keep only because I tend towards inclusionism, but I appreciate Trollminator's opinion that unnamed elements with as-yet unknown properties do not belong in wikipedia. The Steve 16:57, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
But the thing is, there isn't consistency here - look at Roentgenium. The only thing that differentiates it in terms of significance from Ununquadium is that they've managed to find a politically acceptable scientist to name it after, and that only happened four weeks ago. The naming is an arbitrary and useless threshold - naming doesn't in any way mean that the community is satisfied it exists, that happens long before a name is decided by IUPAC. Shimgray 17:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Arbitrary except that the article would then go under the correct name, rather than some scientist's Latin bastardization of periodic element #114. Look, I'm not disagreeing with the keep, however I am challenging the accusations of "Vfd abuse". To my mind, there is certainly some question about whether these temp elements should be included, and that is precisely what Vfd is for. It is not abuse. The Steve 18:28, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Hrm. The scientists in question are IUPAC, under the systematic element name scheme - naming elements, like naming planets used to be (look up the Uranus controversy), is politically very contentious, so there's an agreement to use a placeholder name for the element until an acceptable one is decided on. As things stand, this is the correct name for element 114 (a thought - would moving all these to "element_xxx" be acceptable?) until a better one is decided. "Newly discovered elements may be referred to in the scientific literature but until they have received permanent names and symbols from IUPAC, temporary designators are required. (...) IUPAC has approved a systematic nomenclature and series of three-letter symbols" [1]. After debate, I do think there is a very good case to be made that some of these elements should not be in here (or should be in a generic "unsynthesised elements" page) - but I think "has it got a finalised name" isn't it. Shimgray 00:08, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) (But I do agree that things are getting a bit heated, and I'll try to stand off...)
No, there's a big difference. Roentgenium, unlike these "unun___" placeholders, appears on the official IUPAC periodic table[2]. Like The Steve, I'm not arguing against keeping them, but am concerned about all these apparent violations of civility and assume good faith policies. Niteowlneils 19:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Definately keep. As mentioned, it's a placeholder element name. Hazzamon 15:36, Nov 25, 2004 (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.