Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbiunium (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 speedy keep. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unbiunium

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

Elements 119 and 120 will probably have some information revealed on them in the next 5 years, but I doubt that this element will. Having a full article for it will make Wikipedia promote it as something to be excited about for the near future. Georgia guy (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Given the sheer number of sources that are cited for it, and how many of them are more recent (2015 or 2016) than the previous AfD in 2011, I have to wonder if this is a serious nomination. But if your bar is plans to synthesise it; did you not read under the "Attempts at synthesis" section "The team at RIKEN has listed the synthesis of element 121 among their future plans after their attempts to synthesise element 120 in 2017–2018 and element 119 in 2019–2020"? At that rate, even 5 years (to 2022) doesn't look completely out of the question, if they plan to start after 119 and 120. Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the links to sources above may be a little problematic because most scientists in the field call this "element 121" and not "unbiunium", so that one would only get unreliable sources searching the latter term. It seems fairly clear that a substantial number of reliable sources exist for this, given the fact that the article currently has 31 references. Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Georgia guy: I don't quite understand the nomination. What policy based reason are you giving for deletion? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT supposed to promote stories of the distant future as things to be excited about. Georgia guy (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's a policy? The closest thing I know of is WP:CRYSTAL, but actually the second point there explicitly calls out new superheavy elements as an example: "Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC before isolation in the laboratory, provided that scientists have made significant non-trivial predictions of their properties." I believe the copious text and sources here count as "significant non-trivial predictions" of the likely properties of element 121. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No policy based reason for deletion given. The article has enough sources covering this scientific research. This isn't "promotion" but an article similar to Human mission to Mars --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You might call it "Human mission to Superheavy Island". ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT 1. We wouldn't keep an article because someone said "this might become notable in the future," so we really can't delete an article because someone says "this will probably never become notable" - it's nonsense. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that has never been notable but that Wikipedia has had an article on for at least 3 years?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that start to get into WP:WAX territory? If such articles do exist or have existed, they would be mistakes, not precedents. Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you find articles that have existed for 3 years, with absolutely no sign of notability, please nominate them for deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Georgia guy: I think you're confusing notability with existence. For some unforeseen technical reasons, we may never be able to produce Unbiunium. However we still would have an article on it as the theory behind it and attempts to produce it have been covered by reliable secondary sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: the subject is clearly notable. Porphyro (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2017 (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.