Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbitrium (2nd nomination)

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 Extended periodic table. Aoidh (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unbitrium

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Although I am involved with WP:ELEMENTS and have authored some of the content of this article (see User:Double sharp/Unbitrium for specific attribution), I am not sure whether the topic meets the general notability guideline.

There is plenty of sourced content in this article, but little is pertinent specifically to element 123 (unlike 122, 124, 126, and superheavy elements in general; notability is not inherited), and is already covered in related articles such as extended periodic table. Since this page has been BLAR'd and drafts have been declined numerous times, it is clear that some disagreement exists regarding notability. The guideline MOS:NONEWELEMENTS was published earlier this year in an attempt to codify the consensus, as several project members (including myself) doubt that extensive new sources that would demonstrate notability have come into existence since then.

Additionally, Draft:Unbitrium was rejected yesterday by Robert McClenon citing the many arguments that this element is not notable, yet was moved into mainspace earlier today by DGG, citing that Any element for which there is sufficient published theoretical predictions, is notable. The question then becomes, what predictions are considered sufficient?

Because of the extensive disagreement and local consensus behind the guideline I linked, and the fact that the previous AfD was 12 years ago, I believe it's appropriate to establish a fresh consensus beyond WP:ELEMENTS as to whether this hypothetical chemical element is notable. From me, it's a weak redirect to extended periodic table, but I'm willing to reconsider if coverage specifically of element 123 in reliable sources is deemed sufficient. ^Complex/_Rational 15:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect. This was a draft I created a while back when I still didn't understand the rules of wikipedia. When the draft was declined a few months ago, I then understood that it didn't pass the notability guildlines. Yesterday, someone I have no affiliation with decided to resubmit this draft, and I agree why it was rejected. However, I don't mind if it gets accepted or not, but for now I would say redirect to extended periodic table like unbipentium. ¹⁴¹ Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to Extended periodic table and lock the redirect. I agree with ComplexRational that arguments can be made both ways. The question, and the answer is not obvious, is whether there is sufficient speculative theoretical information for a stand-alone article. My opinion is that there is not, but the results of this AFD should be a rough community consensus with regard to other theoretical elements. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. The entire article is generic predictions about theoretical superactinide elements. (incidently, the same argument applies to Unbiquadium, which is a Good Article for reasons that escape me). Walt Yoder (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources in the unbiquadium article describe more extensive predictions specific to that element, as well as unsuccessful synthesis attempts, which unbitrium does not have. ^Complex/_Rational 17:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, one day these will be the "pre-discovery" sections. (They read a bit like Hassium#Natural occurrence or Livermorium#Unsuccessful synthesis attempts.) But there is enough history on 121, 122, 124, and 126 that the "pre-discovery" section by itself seems to justify an entry. Double sharp (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Extended periodic table and lock the redirect. Unbitrium does not currently have enough notability and notability is not inherited from other element pages. The references in the article refer to the superactinide elements in general rather than unbitrium, and the notability of it has been discussed time and time again with the consensus that it does not need its own article. If events happen and new information comes out, the full article can be recreated but it is clear that as of now unbitrium is not notable enough. Even so, I think locking the redirect would be good so that it is not changed into a full article (like it historically has been multiple times) or vandalised. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that unbitrium will become notable at some point in the future even though it is not notable now, so I think the level of protection to be placed is a point to be discussed. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per MOS:NONEWELEMENTS. Also, InterstellarGamer12321 here nicely notes that notability (in all >=119 elements, i.e., theoretical elements) is derived from/based upon on their range of elements. R to Extended periodic table serves well. -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to hear from User:DGG, who obviously promoted the article in GF. DePiep (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking out references. Most are generic for those super heavy elements. Specific ones are dictionary entries, or Landolt-Börnstein repeated 3 times. These are not selective and so do not prove any notability. So agreeing with redirect. Protection is not a problem, as it can be unprotected as required if new information is published. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the arguments above. I also agree with Graeme Bartlett that protection should not pose problems. Double sharp (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are multiple sources in the article that appear to focus specifically on element 123 (reference numbers 60, 66, and 70/71/72). Is it enough? 123957a (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 70-72 are from a database that covers many elements, so only 60 and 66 are actually specific. I think it is not enough because no one has actually tried to synthesise this element (as at least happened for all others in 119-127) or looked for it in nature, so it is not clear if the few predictions that exist have been used for anything in the real world at all yet. Double sharp (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  #66, K. van der Schoof (2016), currently present in Extended periodic table under #96. DePiep (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- moot here. These sources now have been added to Extended periodic table § Unbitrium (E123) (new, dedicated). Relevance/removal: tbd from there. @Double sharp and 123957a: ping. -DePiep (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DePiep: I think this is not the right section, because the rest of that section is about experimental searches for the elements, not theoretical studies. As for Sukhoruchkin and Soroko, they have done such investigations for everything up to Z = 130, so they are not specific. Double sharp (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moot here, resolve there. DePiep (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 60 is already in Unbiunium#Nuclear stability and isotopes. The multiple predictions mentioned there make it clear that we don't really know much about the potential stability (for one thing, 60 does not consider cluster decay, which other studies suggest should be significant in this region). So, I do not think we should really be basing an article on just one model, even if that happens to be the only one that has been applied to that element (because that's likely because 123 is too far out of reach experimentally to interest most researchers). Double sharp (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment {{Infobox unbitrium}} be salted too, for the same reason. Creation request for example via WT:ELEMENTS. -DePiep (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Extended periodic table, for two reasons:

There is some information in this article that is not in the Extended periodic table article.
Most of the information in this article does not relate specifically to element 123, so it would be easier to find the information in the Extended periodic table article.

123957a (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2023 (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.