Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ununoctium fluoride

Ununoctium fluoride

Ununoctium fluoride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Is this really necessary? All the information here is already in the ununoctium article under the section on compounds. Nothing in the page history worth saving anyway. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing in google books or news, suggesting this is currently no more notable than any of the other hypothesised compounds. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. A redirect to Ununoctium is unnecessary it's the obvious place to look and will be first hit from a search. --Qwfp (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to UnobtainiumUnunoctium#Predicted compounds. Maybe unnecessary, but "Ununoctium fluoride" is by itself not a particularly implausible search term, and the redirect is cheap and harmless.  --Lambiam 01:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. I recall that Uranium fluoride was important as a chemical that was used in separating isotopes for early nuclear weapons, so this could, too, but this trans-Uranium fluoride is too speculative for its own article. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect per Lambian. -Atmoz (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ununoctium#Predicted_compounds. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:20, 15 February 2011 (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.