Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unusual laws


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Unusual laws

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Amusing? Of course. But encyclopedic? Of course not. First, what makes a law, "unusual"? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --► Cekli  829  14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. --► Cekli  829  14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, as has been done with this sort of article ∞ times before. The topic can never meet POV, and is unencyclopedic almost by definition. —Swpbtalk 15:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - as inherently WP:OR. Fenix down (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Well it's certainly an unusual article! .... No evidence of any notability. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: after rewriting as an article about the literature concerning weird laws; see this Snopes article and the literature cited there. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 19:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article needs to be developed. Need to improve. --► Cekli 829  05:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's amusing indeed, but the main problem with the article, even if it did get more items: define what makes a law "unusual"? Should it be an exhaustive list? What could be unusual to one culture may not be unusual in another. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I don't see any way an article like this could ever be made encyclopedic. For one thing, an "unusual" law in one place or one culture or one period in history may be perfectly normal in another, as Naruto points out. Plus there is the sampling problem. Right now there is only one "weird law" mentioned, the Carmel dress code; there is also a paragraph about voting restrictions on immigrants but it doesn't explain what is strange or unusual about them. If kept, the article is likely to continue as it is: random paragraphs about laws that somebody somewhere thought were strange. --MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The topic undeniably gets coverage in reliable sources.  For example,, , , and .  However, this article from the Wall Street Journal calls a gun control law "unusual".  This highlights the problematic nature of the topic: nobody would consider a standard gun control law to be "unusual" in the sense of "walking backward on Sunday is illegal on Main Street from 6pm to midnight".  In light of that, I would agree that any article based on this topic is likely to degenerate into an indiscriminate list of examples selected through editor bias.  However, I'm unwilling to outright say that it should be deleted just because it's a bad idea. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would propose to merge this with another article, Dumb laws. Both articles are in deplorable state, but clearly the topic gets attention and coverage from secondary sources, so it warrants an article on WP. The title "unsual laws" might be better than "dumb laws", but in any case multiple articles about such similar topics should be merged. If the decision is to merge, I am willing to do a cleanup of the combined articles to bring it to an at least decent, readable state.--Reinoutr (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Better yet, Dumb laws should also be nominated for deletion. It has the same problems as the current one, including WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Only a few "dumb laws" are mentioned (including some which are mischaracterized and others which are myths), and the references are mostly to non-reliable sources (such as dumblaws.com, which is basically advertising for a law firm), and the article title is POV/not encyclopedic, and, and, and. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Attention to closing admin: that article is now also on AfD (Articles for deletion/Dumb laws (2nd nomination)). Whatever the decision, I would recommend a single decision for both articles. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, merging the "dumb laws" content with this one. (Or rather, since there is so little content in this article compared to the Dumb Laws one, just rename the other one with this article's title and keep). As for the main basis of many of the objections and the delete opinions, laws are the product of man - so you might as well say that ALL laws are specific to one place or one culture or one period in history and so should be excluded. However, the general concept of having civil and criminal and corporate laws is firmly established in the Western world, and so the perception of what the Western World thinks of as "unusual" in relation to ITS established concept is a valid one. And of course unusual or bizarre or laughable or extreme laws have been written about in numerous sources. As for the other main objection - if the basis for a law's inclusion in this article is that a source has to have written about the law in a way that points out its unusual or extreme nature, then editor bias will be minimized. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Article of no encyclopedic importance. I nod to delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikicology (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rename to a list article with careful inclusion criteria - It seems like between this and dumb laws (which is a more definite delete) there's an opportunity for a List of unusual laws (or perhaps List of unusual laws in the United States or List of unusual city and state laws in the United States) for laws notable (via multiple reliable sources, I would presume) for being unusual, counterintuitive, anachronistic, etc. Kind of like how we have List of video games notable for negative reception rather than Video games that suck. The particulars could be considered on the list talk page. An article about unusual laws is more problematic, though, as it will inevitably either turn into a list or run rampant with synthesis. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I hope this doesn't veer too off-topic for AfD, but I went ahead and created Draft:List of unusual laws and seeded it with just a couple examples. Some comments on the talk page to start a discussion about scope and sourcing requirements. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is when another editor says, "I don't think they are unusual". Then there is an inherent OR issue that can't really be resolved because of the essentially subjective nature of the article title. Fenix down (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What editors think is irrelevant. What matters is what reliable sources think. James500 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A list of unusual laws is perfectly legitimate provided, in each case, there is a reliable source that expressly calls the enactment or rule of law in question "unusual" or some close synonym. Consensus for this was established during a discussion at the "village pump" forum concerning the list of weird buildings. James500 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2014 (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.