Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunding

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bunding

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

There is another article on same subject that is Levee or Dike (construction) (redirect). The "bunding" is a regional variation, likely south asian one. The present article has hardly any referenced info that is worth merging to the Levee article. Before it was discussed for merging here, but merging would be inappropriate for lot of unsourced original research text. So delete and redirect would be the right action, even history merge can be considered. Asided m plane (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although "bund" has an older meaning as "levee" (famously so for the Shanghai bund), the major use of bunding today is for retaining barriers around oil tanks etc., rather than rivers (the derived etymology is obvious). The articles are quite distinct and should remain so. Merges have been discussed and rejected in the past, yet this editor has twice gone against consensus and merged / redirected without agreement. Then they prodded, now they've AfDed - something of a POV it would seem. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the Shanghai bund is not around oil tank, but it is water containment of Huangpu River. If you have any sources to say the articles are quite distinct then please add them to the lead section of this article which is very small section at present. Also, the dab page Bund says "Bund (Bunding) is also an English word deriving from the Urdu word band, which means embankment, levee or dam". Asided m plane (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true, yet irrelevant. Of course the modern engineering term "bunding" derives (in a linguistic and functional sense) from the older word "bund" for a river levee. However the concept described under the term bunding, and the scope of this article, are about very different concepts. Your call for deletion can seemingly only be supported by a claim that bunding of fuel tanks etc. has no independent existence outside of rivers - quite ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created the article. In my opinion, bunding is similar to, but different than a levee or dike, which is why I created an article rather than simply redirecting "bunding" to the levee article. As Andy Dingley said, bunding usually refers to barriers around tanks containing oil or some other liquid, such as water or diesel fuel. I do not dispute that the article could use some improvement, but I do not think that deletion or redirection is appropriate in this case. -- Kjkolb (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have contributed to the article and note its importance for storage tank safety. There have been several recent failures of bund walls, most noticeably at the Buncefield disaster. Peterlewis (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Deleting material, simply because it could be merged, is senseless. Let's make a good faith attempt to merge the two, if a bund really is a type of levee. Otherwise, keep both. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbeleivable, "if a bund really(????) is a type of levee", nobody knows. The article is full of fact tag, and the editors are such that if I remove those fact tagged content they will accuse me of bad faith! Asided m plane (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your excessive and disruptive use of {{fact}} tags is a prime example of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Feel free to make positive contributions, such as researching or adding the references you complain are not present. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have to believe whatever you say after so many keep votes. But I have no regrets for fact tagging nor for listing for deletion. I dont waste my sweat to improve an article that I feel be deleted outright, rather my fact tagging effort will help the article's future. Bother less to point to any essay let alone a policy. Asided m plane (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has several sources, enough to prove both the validity of the term and its notability, therefore it's ineligible for deletion per poilicy. It does need more inline citations, as the over-abundance of fact tags shows. This is really a back-door attempt to merge the article (the likely outcome on a Deletion result) for the THIRD time by a user who refuses to take a consensus "no" for an answer (probably in good faith, though certainly ill-advised now). I respectfully suggest the user read and comply with WP:STICK, as the horse is smelling quite badly now. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to reply as you made personal comment. I tried merging, but the content is not sourced so not worth merging. No surprise article is indeed notable i didn't even say that in my nomination, is that the only criteria for deletion? I'm afraid you missed the whole point. Asided m plane (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm about to use it in the context of Mike Penning, the MP and former firefighter whose constituency suffered the Buncefield fire. Penning referenced bunding problems in Parliament. JRPG (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In Civil Engineering the term 'Earth Bund' is used extensively in terms of construction, as a means of support. Often used when excavating for foundations, for the support of Formwork or, as stated, for the support of liquid containers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.102 (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2010 (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.