Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uqn

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 recreation of deleted content, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unhexseptium and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element extrapolation. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uqn[edit]

Claims to be important as a chemical emement, but doesn't give any sourcing, and says it's only a "hypothetical idea." Notable? TheAE talk/sign 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Element symbol which does not exist. WP:CRYSTAL. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element extrapolation and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unhexseptium for related discussion. -Atmoz (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've corrected the spelling of the hypothetical element and added a reference. Normally I'd say move to unquadnilium and expand, but unquadnilium was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element extrapolation. However, it seems we could be covering the broader subject of names for undiscovered elements somewhere, and this should probably redirect to that article, whatever it is.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 22 January 2009 (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.