Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theoretical periodic table with 8 atomic orbitals

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 delete by Anthony.bradbury as "author's request". —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 01:13Z

Theoretical periodic table with 8 atomic orbitals

Looks like uncited original research; even the atomic numbers, the whole basis for elemental positions on the Periodic table are not fully defined. We've already recently deleted pages for lots of "potential/future" elements and uncited names for groups of them (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Untribium and also those who remember User:Cosmium) on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL and that what we can say about them are just mathematical results and/or obvious trends. I'm taking to AfD because there are several inter-related pages here...bundling several forms of an uncited name for this non-existant group of elements. Looking further, I now see that we already have an extended periodic table at Periodic table (extended), which does include the actual useful info one would want (and can know). A redirect there for the 8-atomic-orbitals page might be reasonable if "Theoretical periodic table with 8 atomic orbitals" is a resonable page name or WP search term. DMacks 17:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now... Perhaps we can ask the author to provide some sources. Based on what I remember from my chemistry courses, the table appears accurate for what would happen with 8 orbitals. I don't think deletion is appropriate... just yet. - grubber 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that you bring up Periodic table (extended), it seems that these articles have significant overlap, and the "extended" version even goes out to 9 orbitals. The only difference I can see is that this AfD version uses a different coloring scheme. I personally prefer the "extended" version, and I'm not sure I see any reason to keep both. I'm tempted to change my vote. - grubber 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grubber. My understanding is that the strength of the periodic table is that it allows the prediction of yet undiscovered elements; and as such the series it predicts can be discussed meaningfully; it is not a mere crystal ball prediction. Note, though that octonium, linked here to element 121, seems to be something completely different. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I concur that it can be useful, but the page does not appear to contain the info that would make it useful (cf. this one). DMacks 19:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- the article has been blanked by the creator Thunderwing 20:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I tagged it with {{db-author}} per WP:CSD#G7. →Ed Gl 21:12, 16 April 2007 (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.