Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ununpentium

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 of the debate was - kept

Ununpentium

Delete. More sciencecruft. "In the world of UFO conspiracy theory culture during the 1980s and 1990s, Bob Lazar asserted that ununpentium functioned as "fuel" for UFOs, being "stepped up" to ununhexium under "particulate bombardment," and that the ununhexium's decay products would include antimatter. These processes are considered implausible in terms of nuclear physics, not least due to the very short half-lives of both elements. As a reference to this kind of UFO conspiracy theory, in the X-COM game series there is an element called elerium-115 or just elerium ("elerium-115" probably being an error as in this form the number would have referred to the number of nucleons instead of the atomic number, meaning that elerium would have no neutrons, which is not possible). A fictional stable isotope of ununpentium occurs in the game Dark Reign. A fictional stable isotope of ununpentium occurs in the movie The Core.". No official recognition of this vanity element. Trollminator 20:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Oh, for goodness' sake. You're quoting the "in popular culture" section... it's been discovered, identified, synthesised by an international team; I keep vaguely aware of the literature in the field, which has undergone serious soulsearching since the last fiasco, and there's no reason to believe this team was faking - the papers are published and recognised, but the mills of IUPAC grind exceeding slow and fine. If you're going to obsess over the nonsensical concept of "vanity elements", then I suggest you VfD Samarium, or Einsteinium, or Nobelium... Strong keep. Shimgray 20:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) +
• Keep DCEdwards1966 20:59, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is clear abuse by the lister. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 21:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Much of vfd is clear abuse by the lister. Mark Richards 22:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep fvw* 23:07, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly encyclopedic. Abuse of VfD. jni 09:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Jayjg 21:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep... it's an element in the periodic table. --Idont Havaname 00:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Any chemistry student can tell you that ununpentium is a valid placeholder name.222.146.107.118 18:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's real. Jeff Knaggs 18:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep for the same reasons mentioned by me in ununbium. Is "sciencecruft" a proper English word anyway? --Andrew 20:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Fangz 20:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep article, delete VfD submitter. —tregoweth 18:40, Nov 28, 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.