Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dangerous & Offensive Trades

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. Please have a discussion on the article talk page about a possible Rename. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous & Offensive Trades[edit]

[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)

Does not meet notability criteria, unclear if this is an actual discrete category that multiple laws fall under rather than a common phrase. Kazamzam (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. Kazamzam (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. JoeNMLC (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just in India, but elsewhere in Commonwealth, this is a term for companies that produce bad smells as part of producing animal byproducts. Many more references here. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Dangerous and offensive trades without predjudice to further moves. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. This topic has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles. In addition to the numerous statutes in many countries that have inherited English law because they were formerly part of the Empire, Stephen's Commentaries says that "dangerous and offensive trades" are part of the English common law of public nuisance: [1]. There are a large number of English and Anglo-American law books that have offensive or dangerous or noxious trades or businesses or manufactures as a form of public nuisance: [2] [3] [4] [5]. The precise language varies between different legal writers, but they are talking about the same thing. The said commonwealth etc statutes look like a restatement, codification or reform of the common law of nuisance. James500 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep AS @James500 and @Лисан аль-Гаиб say this is a widespread theme in laws in the Commonwealth and laws regulating noxious trades exist in many, many countries today.

The article was in a sorry state, and as much as I dislike WP:TNT as a proposal I almost suggested it. Instead I've added some meat to the article, reduced the India-focus. As it stands it's barely encyclopedic but certainly enough to pass deletion. More hands would help.

As far as rename, my impression is that the more common term is "offensive trades" but I don't have stats to back that up.

Oblivy (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2023 (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.