- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant context, not worthy of an article, also doesn't make much sense. Wackymacs 09:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like business promotion. Anthony Appleyard 10:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looking at the original version, it seems it was copied in full from a press release about some proposal, and then wikified by another editor (but original text was kept). I can't find the source to prove the copyvio, but it seems apparent. I have no idea if there ever could be an article titled "LNG gas quality", but I'm sure not one word from this would ever go in it, and legally I suspect not one word could be used anyhow. --rob 11:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as redirect to Liquefied natural gas. Guettarda 02:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete copyvio. [1] [2] Wile E. Heresiarch 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Wackymacs. -- Kjkolb 04:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It might not be a copyvio: it may have been uploaded by someone in the firm named. Anthony Appleyard 05:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects hurt no-one. In fact, the more the better, so long as they're not confusing or insulting. ··gracefool |☺ 18:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Anything that could ever go in this article should be in the LNG article. --Ignignot 19:44, 26 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.