Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuisance fee

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 no consensus. Some potential sources have been identified in the discussion, so let's see if the article is improved using them, and if not it can be nominated again. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nuisance fee[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)

The article provides "a definition" with a supporting link to a vaporware encyclopedia called "Justipedia." The definition itself can be found on websites including Cornell Law and NOLO nevertheless Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from talk page, "Adding a source, entry from the site "Justipedia". I couldn't find any information about whether it's considered reliable by, for instance, WP Law, but seems better than no source. — Mainly 16:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)" Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be kept, there are more sources related to it online ([1], [2], [3], [4]). I haven't reviewed most of these sources, but search results have plenty related to this. The article however needs serious cleanup, and I'd be willing to help with that after the AFD if it's kept. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was categorized as law related so I viewed it from that narrow perspective which may not be correct. Consistent to that Item 1 is a copy of a NOLO definition. Item 2 relates to a different topic (food surcharges). Item 3 relates to a different topic namely Credit Card surcharges. Item 4 relates to convenience fees in rentals etc. If the article is improved I will close the AFD. Perhaps the way to do that might be to expand the topic beyond a legal definition as to cover some of the links you have found. Best Regards and thanks Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is fixable, it shouldn't be in AfD. It should be fixed or tagged for cleanup. BruceThomson (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a "legal definition" the article is a "definition." The four sources provided would blend food surcharges, credit card fees, and convenience fees; which would not be correct.

I found a convenience fee as a definition on another site. There are actually websites saying that "convenience fees are not credit card surcharges."

Blending distinct terms into an article and connecting them together would be original research.

Back to the reason for AFD - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:33, 30 January 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.