Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Radioactive Elements
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 May 31. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Radioactive Elements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article that claims to list "all radioactive elements"; previously PRODed and SecondedPRODed; all elements have radioactive isotopes, so the list would have to list all elements and their respective levels with radioactive isotopes —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 17:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any useful information to List of elements by stability of isotopes and redirect as a plausible search term.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes as it is entirely redundant to that list. Reyk YO! 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the article contains information not in "List of elements by stability of isotopes". First, it is in order of the Atomic number which the other is not. Second, it has the ionic charge which is not listed in the other article. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- the list in the other article is sortable if you want to see it in order of atomic number. Click on the little square icon underneath the "atomic number" heading. Reyk YO! 09:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The ionic charges are wrong, and what is even meant by them is unclear. All elements can have no charge, and all can form ions, usually with a variety of charges. Where are these numbers coming from, and what do they mean, and why does it link to a different concept altogether? I think they are made up.YobMod 14:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first point JRSpriggs makes is not a reason to not merge the article, though I certainly agree deletion isn't useful here. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - The point of the article is to show which elements have only radioactive isotopes. Chlorine Trifluoride (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Then it should so be named; "List of elements containing only radioactive isotopes", not List of radioactive elements. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 13:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the article should be moved, not deleted. Chlorine Trifluoride (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - per below. The list is incomplete and redundant. Chlorine Trifluoride (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per preceding; this list is pretty basic notable stuff for any chemistry student. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes, as that seems a more mature list that covers the same material. I'd not be opposed, however, to merely clarifying the scope of the list and fixing the capitalization of the title—the current phrasing "The following is a list of all current radioactive elements" is clearly at least misleading, and "List of Radioactive Elements" should at least be changed to "List of radioactive elements". {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging looks like the best option here. -- lucasbfr talk 17:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There really doesn't seem anything here to merge. The list is incomplete anyway: what about carbon, hydrogen, indium, potassium, for example? Physchim62 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the scope of the list is supposed to limit it to elements that have only radioactive isotopes, which makes it redundant to List_of_elements_by_stability_of_isotopes#Elements_without_stable_isotopes and should be redirected there. That said, it is still incomplete because Bismuth through Radium are missing. Reyk YO! 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or if needed be, merge and redirect). I think a reasonable high school or college student may be looking for exactly this information, in this format, for a research project. It's not just that I may like it (and I do), but that other users would find this very useful. Needs a lot of work: wikification, citations, etc., so a merger may be just as well. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If it's going to be kept as a junior high school level list (and that's not a bad argument for keeping it, in fact), can editors please say what they want to see in it. Physchim62 (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes . This list is redundant, incomplete, and gives no useful info about the primary charactersitic used to group them (radioactivity). Is the Ionic charge data even true? - i've been marking student exams that state elemental Uranium has 92 protons and electrons, hence no charge. Any student using this list would be in danger of failing any exam on radioactivity, so i hope there are not many. Nothing to merge, nothing is sourced, and the target already covers this more proffesionally in its own section.YobMod 14:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification I just rewrote the description of the list to be — "The following is a current list of all elements which have significant radioactivity in their natural state or have only been produced artificially (and thus are highly radioactive).". Hopefully, this will make it clear that the distinction between this article and the other one is that this one is focused on the element in its natural state (including all isotopes in their natural proportions) while the other is on an isotope by isotope characterization. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/redirect this list adds no information that IS correct. It lists the number of neutrons without explaining which isotope is it referring to, and lists an ionic charge that is 100% random, without providing any kind of referencing. Nergaal (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes. Most information seems to be redundant and the rest is simply wrong.Isron (talk)
- Redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes. I think I'd have to agree with most of the arguments here that this article doesn't really add anything that isn't already covered by the aforementioned article and is therefore redundant. Matt (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as suggested above. Every element has radioactive isotopes (furthermore, this list includes an element that has yet to have been discovered). B.Wind (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, very definitely. The reason originally given in the proposal to delete (article claims to list "all radioactive elements") has been fully dealt with by JRSpriggs's editing of the article, and essentially two other arguments have been introduced in the discussion above: redundancy and inaccuracy. (1) Reundancy: Of course it is true that every element has radioactive isotopes, but many laymen may not know this, and there is a clear sense in which Uranium (for example) is normally considered radioactive while Oxygen (for example) isn't; while anyone with sufficient scientific knowledge will know how to find this information from other sources, such as a list of elements by stability of isotopes, not everyone using Wikipedia has this much knowledge. Arguments based on the list being redundant, as the information is included elsewhere, miss the point that a lot of people of limited scientific knowledge may look for a list of radioactive elements, but not for a list by stability of isotopes, and indeed might have no idea what the latter means if they are redirected there. Bearian mentions high school and college students in this context, and it could well apply to others. Most of the arguments given above ignore the needs of people without specialist scientific knowledge: i.e. the substantial majority of Wikipedia users. (2) Inaccuracy: The argument that some of the information in the article is inaccurate is scarcely ever a good reason for deletion: it is usually a reason for editing the article to make it correct. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who exactly would be looking for an incorrect table of elements that only have radioactive isotopes? Why would such ever be useful for students? Nobody teaches this as a separate topic - anyone wanting to learn about radioactivity is better served by seeing this list in context, which the target article does. I doubt any exam in any subject has asked a student to ever name an element that has only radioactive isotopes - why would they? There is nothing special about them that makes them a class of ther own, either scientifically or practically. Non-chemists telling people what is useful chemistry knowledge does not add up.YobMod 10:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how many people look for "radioactive elements", but I imagine many might. I don't see the relevance of what exams might ask: presumably a student preparing for an exam would prepare what is likely to be on the exam, but other people might want this. Perhaps it was a mistake to refer to Bearian's mention of high school and college students, as they are probably irrelevant. As for "Non-chemists telling people what is useful chemistry knowledge does not add up", I'm afraid I don't understand the point: people may want to look for this information whether or not chemists regard it as useful, and I don't see that including the information tells people that it is useful chemical knowledge. Incidentally, although chemists naturally have an interest in anything to do with the elements, radioactivity is more a physical property, so there is no reason to regard chemists as the only people with relevant opinions. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that all the info is already elsewhere, as stated above. Chlorine Trifluoride (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how many people look for "radioactive elements", but I imagine many might. I don't see the relevance of what exams might ask: presumably a student preparing for an exam would prepare what is likely to be on the exam, but other people might want this. Perhaps it was a mistake to refer to Bearian's mention of high school and college students, as they are probably irrelevant. As for "Non-chemists telling people what is useful chemistry knowledge does not add up", I'm afraid I don't understand the point: people may want to look for this information whether or not chemists regard it as useful, and I don't see that including the information tells people that it is useful chemical knowledge. Incidentally, although chemists naturally have an interest in anything to do with the elements, radioactivity is more a physical property, so there is no reason to regard chemists as the only people with relevant opinions. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who exactly would be looking for an incorrect table of elements that only have radioactive isotopes? Why would such ever be useful for students? Nobody teaches this as a separate topic - anyone wanting to learn about radioactivity is better served by seeing this list in context, which the target article does. I doubt any exam in any subject has asked a student to ever name an element that has only radioactive isotopes - why would they? There is nothing special about them that makes them a class of ther own, either scientifically or practically. Non-chemists telling people what is useful chemistry knowledge does not add up.YobMod 10:07, 13 March 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.