Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitumen-based fuel (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Bitumen-based fuel
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has now been tagged for notability for 7 years. Merge discussion attracted two comments, one in support, one opposed. Last year's AfD was not able to reach a consensus, partly because of suggestions around a potential merge. I'm hoping a thorough conversation this time will resolve the issue. Pinging all involved in discussing its notability previously:, , , , , ; originally tagged for notability by ; and  involved in merge discussion. Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * merge-it looks like it has had the discussion of being a merge for over a year now as it says on the top part of the article. Wgolf (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, the merge discussion after a year has 2 support and 1 oppose, I didn't feel, especially as nominator, that I could merge when it wasn't unanimous. Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually there were some more supports for merger expressed during the two AfDs (e.g. like Wgolf above) but never added their comments separately to the merger discussion. Beagel (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment I would certainly think that a merge was a suitable outcome. Boleyn (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Orimulsion (rather than vice-versa as per the merge discussion). Orimulsion is notable to stand as an article. North America1000 03:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Orimulsion is a registered trademark for a particular product from a particular place. We should prefer a more generic title for the general concept.  As an example of coverage of an alternative, please see Handbook of Alternative Fuel Technologies which discusses the production of synthetic crude oil from bitumen. Andrew D. (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.