Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitumen-based fuel

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 No consensus. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bitumen-based fuel[edit]

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

This has been tagged for notability and unreferenced for over six years without anyone resolving it. I could not establish its WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it would seem that the only company making any progress in this field is Orimulsion and they already have an article here. There probably needs to be a discussion about whether that company is notable enough for an article but either way I think the best solution is for the two articles to be merged under one or the other title. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with Stalwart111 that the best solution would be merging Bitumen-based fuel and Orimulsion articles. There has been a merge discussion but with not very active participation. I personaly think that Orimulsion should be merged into Bitumen-based fuel and not other way around as we should cover the topic in general and not to promote certain brands. E.g. we don't have an article title Prozac which is the most famous brand of that drug but we have instead of this a title Fluoxetine which is more brand-neutral. As for notability, I think that e.g. this UK Parliament briefing paper, which starts with "Fuels derived from bitumen (e.g. Orimulsion)..." makes clear that Orimulsion is just one of bitumen-based fuels and at the same time establish notability of the topic. Beagel (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Orimulsion. Harrison2014 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose based on the above we should really be looking to keep (no consensus) this and merge Orimulsion into this topic, rather than the other way around. As Beagel quite rightly points out, if we have an article it should focus on the technology, not a particular company and it's products. The option to merge seems to have support but the merge target should probably be this title rather than the company. I wonder if Boleyn would be comfortable with that solution - closing this AFD as no consensus and merging the two articles under this title with a redirect (which could probably be done boldly given the general consensus here). We could ask NorthAmerica if he would be willing to close this on that basis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not convinced, as this article is still wholly unreferenced (always a concern when merging) and I don't think it's been established that this is a notable topic for an article. Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From my perspective, the two articles, Orimulsion and "Bitumen-based fuel", may discuss two different topics. Orimulsion appears to reference a mixture of naturally occurring bitumen (i.e., from oil sands), water and surfactant. This "Bitumen-based fuel" article seems to start by discussing the heavy residue left at the end of the refining process. The substances may be chemically similar (although substantial differences may exist, especially as to trace substances). If the article is referencing a refined product, I might have suggested merging into and re-directing to Bitumen, but that re-directs to Asphalt and the market for "asphalt" (at least from a U.S. definition) would not be fuel. Further and contrary to the article, "asphalt" is not the "bottom of the barrel". The refinery bottom of barrel is referred to as "pitch" (most often when marketed as roof or other sealant) or "carbon black". Another low-value (but not bottom of barrel) refinery output is "bunker fuel". Bunker fuel is typically the low-value fuel produced by refineries. Petroleum pitch is sometimes used as fuel, but that is not common and I am not aware of it being commonly referred to as "bitumen-based fuel" On the other hand, to the extent the article is actually discussing Orimulsion, then it should re-direct to the Orimulsion article. I do not recommend re-directing the Orimulsion article to this article as I am not aware of "bitumen-based fuel" as being common in the energy industry or elsewhere.--Rpclod (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As I referred above, this UK Parliament briefing paper says "Fuels derived from bitumen (e.g. Orimulsion)..." makes clear that Orimulsion is just one of the bitumen-based fuels. Beagel (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for providing the link to the briefing paper. I read through it. The only possible suggestion that other fuels are "derived" from bitumen is the implicit suggestion in the use of the abbreviation "e.g.". However, nowhere does the article state that other bitumen-derived fuels actually exist, much less list any. In fact, the article indicates that the only similar fuels to Orimulsion are coal and heavy fuel oil (essentially the bunker fuel that I reference above). Please also note that the paper does not use the term "bitumen-based fuels". As bitumen is refined in many refineries (often as dilbit), one could say that gasoline, diesel and other refined products are bitumen-derived fuels and, in that case, many other articles already cover the subject. The only bitumen-based fuel appears to be Orimulsion. I think that this article has fatal flaws because its subject is just a phrase that is not even commonly used, the article reads like original research, and - apart from Orimulsion - the subject is not a real issue.--Rpclod (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Keep - I think it's workable, and I also don't agree with redirecting it to a specific company that happens to be involved in it. I don't think it's good policy. Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 19:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A general and notable technique not necessarily tied to Orimulsion. See: [1], [2], [3], [4] ~KvnG 23:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles that KvnG lists relate to the purported subject of the article. The articles discuss diluted bitumen (dilbit), synthetic crude, and generally bitumen as a feedstock to refineries. Other than Orimulsion, bitumen is not commonly used as a fuel.--Rpclod (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2014 (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.