Deletion of Gas porosity

Comment: This article has problem with NPOV and therefore needs to be rewrite, but I disagree with deletion. If the information in the article is a copy of published information (and the patent is published), it can't be . Also, gas porosity is quite notable thing in petrophysics, and worth to have its own article. This article is about gas porosity and not about the Patent 5684299 solely. The user presented this article for deletion uses logic that if the source is not notable, that also means that the article can't be notable. I think this is wrong and dangerous logic to use. About copyvio
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I assume that a patent specification is public domain, so that no question of copy-vio arises.  The patent is a published source.  This is thus not  as WP uses the term.  The article has several other tags on it, and we should hope that it will in due course be improved
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)