Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of legal loopholes


 * 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 delete. Clear consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

List of legal loopholes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is hopelessly unencyclopedic. What is to one reader a "legal loophole" is to another reader an intended exception. The practice of using the term "loophole" pejoratively to criticize a disliked application of law further complicates any sort of reasonable inclusion criterion based on WP:RS, and a list of "applications of law that have been criticized as legal loopholes" is hopelessly unencyclopedic. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 18:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, not even a definable subject.Pincrete (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:LSC, lists must have unambiguous selection criteria. As RJaguar3 explains above, this article cherrypicks laws that the list's author(s) finds disfavorable. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Note the numerous references in the article which clearly and unambiguously call the special laws, exception,or provisions "loopholes,"so that list membership is well established. It does not have to be "unintended" to be a loophole. Edison (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - likely to mislead laypersons. One lawyer's loophole is another attorney's exemption. This could be a list somewhere, but I don't want to be associated with it. I will post a note on WP:LAW to get more opinions. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: All the above get it right on the head. The term "legal loophole" is in itself divisive, suggests the use of the "loophole" is nefarious and contrary to the spirit of the law or to legislative intent (to the extent that such a thing can be presumed to exist). I can't think of an instance where the term "loophole" being applied to a law, part of a law, or some interpretation of the law is not divisive and open to broad interpretation. While we should comment on the controversy where there is one, using a loaded term like this isn't the right way to do it. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would agree that the inherent POV and OR issues trump the examples described in the media.  I think it's conceivable that something on this topic could be written, but it would have to be much different than this article.  If such an attempt were made, it would be better to start over from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2016 (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.