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. Cabayi (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loading dock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Tagged as poorly refrerenced for 6 years with no improvement. The text of this is almost all WP:OR. Between the references currently in the article and my own searching, all I'm seeing is companies in the loading dock business and WP:PRIMARY sources from various governments listing regulations about loading docks. My first thought was WP:TNT, but I can't even find enough WP:SECONDARY sources to do anything beyond a stub.

Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yard ramp -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination doesn't provide a reason to delete. It appears that improvement is wanted but that the nominator doesn't know how to do this. But does that mean it's not possible? No – consider, for example, the section about loading dock levelers. This is quite extensive and so might need more work. It seems easy to find a respectable source which discusses these in detail – The Warehouse Management Handbook or Facilities Planning and Design. Of course, the work of obtaining, reading, digesting and summarising such sources would be significant and the task is likely to be thankless. The nomination cites WP:TNT but that is not policy and the use of high explosives is not appropriate. Here are more relevant polcies and guidelines:

1. WP:IMPERFECT – "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome."
2. WP:ATD – "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
3. WP:CHOICE – "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians."
4. WP:SOFIXIT – "In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia."

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable topic, no matter the quality of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No proper rationale for deletion. If an article of a notable topic needs improvement, especially if it's been six years, then fix it! A quick search brought up the book Technical Standards and Design Guidelines Mixed - Use Buildings which is a great place to start. Oakshade (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2020 (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.