Talk:Tennessine: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Andrew Gray (talk | contribs) |
Trollminator (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:::That doesn't make it notable for the vast majority of users. There are other places for sciencecruft fans to talk about this. [[User:Trollminator|Trollminator]] 19:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
:::That doesn't make it notable for the vast majority of users. There are other places for sciencecruft fans to talk about this. [[User:Trollminator|Trollminator]] 19:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
||
::::"sciencecruft"? '''Strong keep'''. It's an accurate factual summary of the current state of knowledge regarding an unsynthesised element. Elements are inherently encyclopedic (although you could possibly argue for a single page on "miscellaneous transuranics"); it "exists" in that we know it to be possible, we have a broad idea of its properties, we have an offically-standardised name for it. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] 19:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
::::"sciencecruft"? '''Strong keep'''. It's an accurate factual summary of the current state of knowledge regarding an unsynthesised element. Elements are inherently encyclopedic (although you could possibly argue for a single page on "miscellaneous transuranics"); it "exists" in that we know it to be possible, we have a broad idea of its properties, we have an offically-standardised name for it. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] 19:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
||
:Simply being factual is not enough to demonstrate notablity. In any event, this element does not exist. It's pure speculation by fans. '''Non-notable'''. [[User:Trollminator|Trollminator]] 19:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|||
::'''Keep''', it's on any good periodic table. -- [[user:zanimum]] |
::'''Keep''', it's on any good periodic table. -- [[user:zanimum]] |
||
Revision as of 19:22, 24 November 2004
Delete. Fancruft. Stub about an element that has not been discovered and about which nothing is known. Trollminator 17:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep official IUPAC assignment - therefore something on wich the whole chemical science community agrees - therefore legitimate. --Musschrott 18:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That doesn't make it notable for the vast majority of users. There are other places for sciencecruft fans to talk about this. Trollminator 19:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- "sciencecruft"? Strong keep. It's an accurate factual summary of the current state of knowledge regarding an unsynthesised element. Elements are inherently encyclopedic (although you could possibly argue for a single page on "miscellaneous transuranics"); it "exists" in that we know it to be possible, we have a broad idea of its properties, we have an offically-standardised name for it. Shimgray 19:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That doesn't make it notable for the vast majority of users. There are other places for sciencecruft fans to talk about this. Trollminator 19:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Simply being factual is not enough to demonstrate notablity. In any event, this element does not exist. It's pure speculation by fans. Non-notable. Trollminator 19:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, it's on any good periodic table. -- user:zanimum