Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loading dock

Loading dock

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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.

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:

WP:IMPERFECT – "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome."
WP:ATD – "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
WP:CHOICE – "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians."
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]