Deletion of Docket (court)

Comment: per Phil Bridger; sufficient sources to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This is how the AfD process should work:  The idea is to vote and give the reasoning for ones vote.  Then discuss and clarify the votes or positions, in the meantime the article gets improved if necessary.  One has to assume that editors who bring their opinions here know the policies and guidelines, and arguing with them that they don't understand them is fruitless.  My opinion is that the article currently passes the  tests
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There's a fundamental misunderstanding here of the process:  An Afd for |notablity is argues that the topic ''in itself'' should not have a Wikipedia article because no good Wikipedia article  ''could ever'' be written about the topic.  I and others argue that the topic  has encyclopedic significance given its wide usage in the United States and numerous appearances in reliable sources.  That, I would think is self-evident, hence, it is a notable topic.  The current state of the article is that it {{tl|needs citations}}.  That is a reason to add templates and improve the article, preferably by a subject matter expert to provide cites for the summary which now exist in the article. The article needs improvement not deletion.  Impatience with the pace at which the article improves is never a good reason to delete.  |The Wikipedia is a work in progress
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:WIP)