This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below
. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete.
Redwolf24 (
talk) 02:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
As we haven't even found a single Period 8 element, writing about Period 9 elements makes no sense.
Taw 21:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wait for them to give the Period 8 elements actual names first. :P
Acetic Acid 21:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It will be a long time before there is anything concrete to put on this page.
ManoaChild 23:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with above.
Amren 23:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to
period 8 element and add a short note on that page about what "period 9 element" would mean.
Grutness...
wha? 01:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Period 8 is not yet known, so Period 9 might as well be Period 546. One speculative Period is satisfactory.
Xoloz 20:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep In the
extended periodic table the Period 9 elements are noted and that table pre-exists Wikipedia by several decades. In addition, we already have entries for several of the Period 8 elements for which scientific or fiction speculations have been made, so that makes period 9 the lowest totally unpopulated (by articles) period of the periodic table.
Caerwine 00:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per
Acetic Acid. ~⌈
Markaci⌋
2005-08-21 T 07:38:24 Z
:
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
