Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfair business practices
- 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. I see a consensus to Keep and no support for deletion proposal. Liz Read! Talk! 19:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Unfair business practices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no evidence of a set definition of an "unfair" practice, and this article makes heavy use of WP:SYNTH to combine various definitions from different places. However, unlike "fraud" which has a clear and agreed-upon definition, pretty much anyone can call anything an unfair business practice. I suggest it be deleted due to aforementioned SYNTH, as well as WP:NOTDICTIONARY concerns. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep while there might not be a set definition of what unfair business practices are, or rather what these are will vary by country/organizations/schools of thought, the broad concept of unfair business practices clearly is notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note to the closing admin: without sourcing to prove that it is "clearly" notable, this is just WP:SOURCESEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment this is a concept that does have a lot of history, and it's not as unbounded as the nomination makes it seem. For example:
- EU Directive 93/13/EE, then EC 2017/2394, protect against unfair contract terms, sometimes described as "Unfair Business-to-Consumer Business Practices" [1]. Here's an announcement last week about enforcement, which talks about "unfair commercial practices" a synonym.
- UK has had unfair contract terms laws for about 50 years or more. Other commonwealth jurisdictions, same.
- However this article sweeps much more broadly, and doesn't just deal with issues of unfair contract terms but extends to a variety of business practices. And it's U.S. based. And it seems to be quite original-researchy. I don't like TNT but that might be the option here. Is there a possible merge/redirect target? Oblivy (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as the topic has been discussed in depth in multiple reliable sources. For example:
- Tamara M Buckwold, Statutory Regulation of Unfair Business Practices in Saskatchewan: Possibilities and Pitfalls, 1999 62-1 Saskatchewan Law Review 45, 1999 CanLIIDocs 624, <https://canlii.ca/t/7n2zt>, [2]
- Heitler, George. “Antitrust, Restraint of Trade, and Unfair Business Practices: Impact on Physicians.” The Journal of legal medicine (Chicago. 1979) 3.3 (1982): 443–460.
- Jakouloff, Karim. “Social organisations can be guilty of unfair business practices.” Revue de l’Union européenne 580 (2014): 436–440.
- Two other examples:
- Business Torts Reporter (a newsletter for lawyers) had a recurring column called
- “Unfair Business Practices.” For example, Business Torts Reporter 24.6 (2012): 166-
- The U.S. Federal Trade Commission incorporated the term into its mission statements in the late 1990s, e.g., Goal 1: Prevent fraud, deception, and unfair business practices in the marketplace [3].
- Buckwold is discussing a term called an "unfair practice" in the statute, defined as:
5. It is an unfair practice for a supplier, in a transaction or proposed transaction involving goods or services, to: (a) do or say anything, or fail to do or say anything, if as a result a consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled; (b) make a false claim; (c) take advantage of a consumer if the person knows or should reasonably be expected to know that the consumer: (i) is not in a position to protect his or her own interests; or (ii) is not reasonably able to understand the nature of the transaction or proposed transaction. That seems like a workable scope.Buckwold notes that Canadian provinces have laws headed 'Unfair Trade Practices Act" or "Trade Practices Act" or "Business Practices Act". This is a common issue in the project, which can be addressed by putting alternate terms at the top. There's been a shift towards Unfair Commercial Practices in recent years but I think the meaning is the same. Oblivy (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, conditionally. It’s not the most common legal term of art, but based upon what’s been found and noted above, it’s got significant coverage. My opinion that WP: HEY is met, is conditioned on someone adding the sources found to the article and making sense of it. In the alternate, if nobody volunteered to work on it, userfy it to my space. I’m not sure if I can work on this one this week. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Satisfies GNG and does not violate NOT. A topic should not be deleted merely because its definition is unclear or disputed. If we deleted articles on such grounds we would have to delete our articles on law, justice, crime, marriage and sin to begin with, because there is no worldwide agreement about what they actually consist of. For the avoidance of doubt, an article should not be deleted merely because it needs to be disambiguated or split. James500 (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this and to @Bearian as well. I'm encouraged by the replies although I find the mention of Justice a bit triggering because it attracts diverse opinions (I'm thinking of a particular divine justice editor...). I'll see if I can make time over the next few days for a first swipe at this and will report back if I do. Oblivy (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have substantially rewritten the article. It's much narrower in scope (maybe too narrow?). It needs a narrative rather than just country-by-country -- I have ideas on what's needed but not enough time to do it, so any helping hand would be great. Oblivy (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this and to @Bearian as well. I'm encouraged by the replies although I find the mention of Justice a bit triggering because it attracts diverse opinions (I'm thinking of a particular divine justice editor...). I'll see if I can make time over the next few days for a first swipe at this and will report back if I do. Oblivy (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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.