Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuel bunker


 * 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. Merge it somewhere perhaps. Spartaz Humbug! 21:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Fuel bunker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

ReasonReviewed as part of new article review/curation. Appears to be an unused two word combination. Zero sources, tagged for having zero sources since mid-april. I could even find usage of the term much less sources on it. Also / probably because term is somewhat self-conflicting. North8000 (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "term is somewhat self-conflicting". How? WT79 The Engineer (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That was a sidebar comment but what I meant was that in the context of where there is storage to power an engine, fuel generally means liquid, and, as the article notes, such storage for liquid is termed a tank rather than a bunker. BTW thanks for all of your work. With this AFD I'm just trying to do my job properly, Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, it is not an "unused two word combination" - almost all steam locomotives use solid fuels, and the term "bunker" is very widely used for the area of a tank locomotive in which fuel is stored (the Tank locomotive article shows this well). Yes, the Tank locomotive article is also unsourced, but the images if nothing else demonstrate that solid fuels are frequently used, and stored, on steam locomotives. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that but it does not address or refute my comment. Applying my comment to your example, IMHO in that case the common terminology would be "coal" rather than fuel, and the common names for the storage container would be "bunker" or "coal bunker" rather than "fuel bunker". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Bunker" is an ambiguous term; the primary topic is not the sort of bunker we are talking about. Bunker (fuel) already exists as a redirect to Fuel Bunker. Coal is not the only fuel kept in fuel bunkers; in wood-burning engines or indeed any engines burning solid fuels (for which wood and coal are the most common instances), the term 'bunker' (not 'tank') is used for the fuel storage container. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thus the only part of your reason is not addressed is that the article has 0 sources (tagged since mid-April), which is true, but a stub article which has been unsourced for about a month (so far) is not very long compared with some articles. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You've not addressed the main question I raised which is: Is the term "fuel bunker" commonly used? Your logic seems to be "if coal or wood is fuel, and they are stored in a bunker, therefore "fuel bunker" is a commonly used term" but that does not follow.  And I was bringing up sources as the arbiter of this.   If you are arguing that this is a commonly used term, why not settle it and find a source or two that uses the term "fuel bunker"?  Or, is your argument in essence "we should have an article on coal bunkers and wood bunkers and "fuel bunker" is the best title that we can create on that, even though it is not a commonly used term"?  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . WT79 The Engineer (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in the article, fuel bunkers are commonly known as simply bunkers; feel free to move if you think that 'Bunker (fuel)' better conforms to the WP:COMMONNAME policy. I thought they were about equally used, and so chose fuel bunker as it is less confusable with bunker fuel.


 * Rename/redirect. Supposedly, Bunker fuel is the generic term given to any fuel poured into a ship’s bunkers to power its engines. Deepsea cargo ships typically burn the heavy, residual oil left over after gasoline, diesel and other light hydrocarbons are extracted from crude oil during the refining process. Devoutman (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That;s a different use of bunker, but by "pour" does reinforce that for stored fuel for an engine fuel typically means liquid. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge It is easy to find substantial sources such as An Introduction to Bunkering and there's an obvious alternative to deletion – merger to Fuel_oil. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging to Fuel oil – Bunker fuel is something else entirely, it just happened to be named similarly, because it was originally stored in the ships' coal bunkers (this is clearly explained in the fuel oil article). WT79 The Engineer (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect> Bunkering, the loading and storage of fuels in which a bunker might be used.Djflem (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the bunkering article, "Bunkering is the supplying of fuel for use by ships, and includes the shipboard logistics of loading fuel and distributing it among available bunker tanks". This means that ships' bunkers are where the fuel ends up after the bunkering process, but are not part of the process itself. WT79 (Speak to me &#124; account info) 09:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In other words bunkering is the loading of fuel into a bunker. How is the space where fuel is stored not part of the process of storing fuel?Djflem (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The storage container for storing fuel is not part of the process of loading fuel into storage containers. This can be analogised to the pouring of a glass of water; the glass is not part of the process of tipping up the jug. WT79 (Speak to me &#124; account info) 10:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly, when pouring a glass of water, the glass is very integral to the process. Otherwise you are "pouring water" into a bucket, on he ground, into a hole, into your mouth or all the other myriad of places where you can pour water. Loading fuel into a bunker requires a bunker, doesn't it? The term bunker is used in the article Bunkering and specifically states: The term originated in the days of steamships, when the fuel, coal, was stored in bunkers. Nowadays the term bunker is generally applied to the storage of petroleum products in tanks, and the practice and business of refueling ships. Djflem (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Loading fuel into a bunker requires a bunker, but that's not my point. The bunker is not part of the process of filling it, and the article about bunkering only mentions bunkers as being the target of the bunkering, it doesn't give any explanation of what the term means. WT79 (Speak to me &#124; account info) 20:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment / analysis   There was no real response to my questions above, but they seem to be raising a different rationale for the naming.    I AFD'd this thinking about the article purporting that "fuel bunker" being a commonly used term (which, IMO, it isn't)  and also that it implies that bunkers are used to store liquid fuels (because coal and word are not commonly called fuel in this context).  Seeing the additional discussion above, I   think that I see the creator's rationale.    They basically are writing an article about bunkers that store coal and wood.  The only common name in common to these is "bunker", but "bunker" is ambiguous....it can have completely different meanings, and already has an article by one of those other meanings.   So "Fuel bunker"  is a best attempt to create a title and is not necessarily saying that "fuel bunker" is a commonly used term.   In this light, I'd support either keeping as is or renaming to Bunker (fuel). North8000</b> (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Expand on this comment by proposing to merge into fuel tank – When I created the fuel bunker article, I never considered the possibility of storage containers for liquid fuels being termed 'bunkers'. My speciality is steam locomotives, which almost solely use solid fuels, and the fuel tanks for those that don't are never (at least in my experience) referred to as bunkers. I have very little experience of ships, and since none of the articles I had searched through (steamship, steamboat, steam-powered vessel) contained any information about fuel bunkers, I didn't think that anything would be different in ships. In recognition of the comment above, I wish to propose merging this article into fuel tank, and expanding the article/section of merged article to include information about bunkers for liquid-fueled ships, etc.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.