Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CO2 emitted per million Btu of energy from various fuels

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 merge to Greenhouse gas. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of CO2 emitted per million Btu of energy from various fuels

User took data from this table and made an article. The title is something that wont be searched for. Mblumber (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article because I was searching for the information myself and couldn't find it on Wikipedia. I think many other people will find this information very enlightening and useful. This article also provides a good connection between various fuel, co2 emission, and environment related articles. If the title is a problem, then someone can create a new title, but that is not grounds for deletion. Especially since articles can be found through indirect searches too. (for example: simply typing in "co2 btu" in Wikipedia's search bar puts this page right at the top! Yaki-gaijin (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything belongs on Wikipedia. If you can find it elsewhere, simply including an external link somewhere rather than copying the material would make for a better option. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - appears to be useful (even more useful if metric equivalents could be included). Will be found by linking William M. Connolley (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Btu is an obsolete unit and has no place in the definition of an article on a scientific topic. If somebody wants to change it to KWh, MJ or some other metric unit, I'd change my opinion. JulesH (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Greenhouse gas (which redirects from "Carbon emissions") after converting data to metric. The information is useful, and that seems a likely place for readers to look. Tim Ross (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tim Ross. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I stumbled across it the other day, and found it useful. -Atmoz (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 4 and 10. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify please? The information is verifiable (4) and does not require original research (10).Yaki-gaijin (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes. It duplicates a single primary source, which is presumably based on a single study, and as such to infer that the data is true of all such fuels is unverifiable original research. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emission coefficients might change due to fuel quality etc, but this article isn't implying that all types of gasoline in all situations release the same amount of co2.Yaki-gaijin (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tim Ross. Tevonic (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly encyclopedic content that can be verified. The nominator does not specify any valid criteria for deletion. I agree, however, that the article needs a better name—but that is never a valid argument for a deletion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 06:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tim Ross. Scyrene (talk) 00:57, 11 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.