Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yard ramp


 * 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 merge to Material-handling equipment. Keep voters are not citing coverage that could be used to expand the article or would make WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yard ramp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has been tagged for OR for 10 years. Has a single reference, to the web site of a company that manufacturers these. My own searching finds lots of places that sell or make these, but nothing that that meets WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY. Maybe this could be covered in Loading dock, but without sourcing, there's nothing viable to merge, and Loading dock is a mess anyway. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This seems to mention it in a non sales context . Toasted Meter (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Just like loading dock, this just needs work per our policies such as WP:IMPERFECT. The worst case would be merger to inclined plane, which covers the topic of ramps in a more general way.  Deletion is not appropriate per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 20:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable topic. Extremely common equipment used all over the world. It's commonness makes it notable. The article in bad shape for years is a case of WP:SOFIXIT. Strange that the nom proposed merging into Loading dock when they are AfD-ing the Loading dock article. Besides, these frequently aren't used in loading docks - even the photo in this article shows it being used to load a truck, not a loading dock.Oakshade (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - after a struggle, I've now managed to find some citations (although not many) where this product is discussed, and included them in the article. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 10:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , That's not a very strong set of sources to base an article on. I was able to find the first source (Order-Fulfillment and Across-The-Dock Concepts, Design, and Operations Handbook) on-line in worldcat.  There's a single paragraph about this which has a generic description of what these things are.  Basically, a WP:DICTDEF.  I could not find the other book by the same author, so I can't review it.  The rest of the sources are a manufacturer of these (ramplo.net);  a patent, which is a WP:PRIMARY source; and three government standards which don't even mention Yard Ramp in them.  This is not the kind of sourcing we base encyclopedia articles on. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not fantastic, but it is a better position than the original was still. Given the widespread use, the patents based on the device, and the (even minimal) sourcing, I reckon it's worth having around, even as a stub - which is effectively what it is now I've cut a lot of the unreferenced stuff from the article. If you'd like to cut it further down, go ahead :) Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 23:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've trimmed the page back to only material which is supported by references. We're left with four sentences, and an image which turns out to be a copyvio so I've nominated it for deletion on commons. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I'm not sure I'd have cut back as far as you did - I think some of the other sources might have led the concept notability, even without directly mentioning the thing by the same name - but I can understand why you have. In light of that, I'd go for weak delete. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 13:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I went through each section that I cut and compared it to the cited reference. If I could not find anything in the cited source which supported the statement, I deleted the statement.  If you can find any WP:RS which support any of the deleted material, feel free to restore it, but make sure you include a reference which actually verifies the statement.
 * I certainly agree that yard ramps exist, and that they're useful and widespread pieces of industrial equipment. We have sufficient sources to pass WP:V.  But, to pass WP:N, we need multiple WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV.  We don't have that.  Maybe this could just be a paragraph in Material-handling equipment? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's definitely fair, I think you're right re SIGCOV. Merging into the MHE article could be a good compromise, and sounds like a good idea to me given as you say that it clearly meets verifiability - and, what do you think, seeing as you've both expressed an interest in this? Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 14:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's definitely fair, I think you're right re SIGCOV. Merging into the MHE article could be a good compromise, and sounds like a good idea to me given as you say that it clearly meets verifiability - and, what do you think, seeing as you've both expressed an interest in this? Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 14:54, 27 April 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.