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.
Delete - more sciencecruft vanity elements. This does not exist and is not officially recognized. Google searches throw up no serious literature, only Wikipedia mirrors. Trollminator 20:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strong keep; it's been synthesised, ("does not exist" - what, do we have to turn an accelerator over to making it 24/7 to keep an atom of it in existence at all times for it to be worthy of treatment?), and the concept of a "vanity element" is nonsensical. Shimgray 20:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is simply not notable enough. How many people are really interested in this? It's extreme sciencecruft. Trollminator 21:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why this and not Roentgenium? The only fundamental difference is that one has been named and one hasn't (they're pretty slow about these things). Shimgray 21:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strong keep. VfDcruft! Haha... I like that term. --Idont Havaname 00:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strong keep. It's in the Periodic Table, and this should be reason enough to keep this article - roentgenium (unununium) also does not exist in principle, but we can make this element should we want it, and the same applies with ununbium. --Andrew 19:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep although it's quite likely to still be a stub for the next 10 years.
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.