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. There has been adequate participation herein, but ultimately there is no consensus for a particular action regarding the article. Discussion regarding the article's content, inclusion criteria, a potential name change, etc. can continue on its talk page. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb laws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unusual laws. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the title is inherently POV, etc. What could be a "dumb" law in one instance may not be "dumb" in another. The references given in the article aren't very convincing, one (Dumblaws) is not a reliable source, while the other sources do not explicitly state that the laws they are discussing are "dumb". If only BJAODN still existed, this would have been perfect for it, but nooooo. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Attention to closing admin: this AfD seems linked to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unusual_laws. Whatever the decision, I would recommend a single decision for both articles. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (Copying my argument from the 2007 AFD which resulted in a "Keep") If this were an article mindlessly repeating the fake or misrepresented "dumb laws" circulated by lazy newspaper columnists or uncritical emailers, it would be a good candidate for deletion. As it is, it provides encyclopedic information to show that such laws are often nonexistent or grossly misrepresented. An example is a book claiming that a city has "an ordinance against tieing alligators to fire hydrants"[1] when the actual ordinance prohibits tieing ANIMALS to fire hydrants (a 'gator is an animal, right?). As references, there are such sources as the Snopes debunking of sorority houses being banned in some small town as brothels. The article as it exists could be renamed Dumb law hoaxes to more accurately represent it. Or it could have a section on actual dumb laws in addition to the hoaxes. There have been and are some genuinely dumb laws, like the "no snowball law" [2] [3]. If a legislature calls some laws "dumb laws" and moves to repeal them, then it is likely the laws really exist [4].(link from 2007 is dead in 2014) which could be included if 1)a printed source exists to call it a dumb law and b) a citation to that actual law is provided. The American Bar Association Journal and its counterparts in other countries sometimes include such material in a somewhat humorous but verified way. Some "dumb laws" are actually just old laws which had no sunset provision, such as actual law from my town from circa 1900 which required that an automobile be preceded by someone walking along ahead to assure that horses were not frightened.(adding:)There is no basis for demanding a common fate for this article and the other article mentioned above. Instead, merge the other article into this one and consider retitling it. Edison (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not only is the title POV, but the whole concept is POV. Who says what is or isn't a dumb (or unusual) law? That varies from culture to culture and from time period to time period. And even if we have a source saying that the law is dumb/unusual, those sources are themselves POV. They are usually written for humor value, with little attention paid to whether the description of the law is accurate or not (or what we call "editorial oversight", the requirement for a reliable source). Just look how many of the mythical dumb laws have been reported by usually reliable sources! This article is a little better written and sourced than Unusual laws, but IMO the topic is inherently unencyclopedic and both articles should be deleted. (However, I disagree with the suggestion that the articles be treated together. They are nominated at different times so they are on different schedules, and the discussions may involve different people and different arguments which should be evaluated individually.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Well at the very least the page title needs to change. "Dumb" is not only subjective but it's a particularly undescriptive pejorative that, in an encyclopedia, should probably [properly] be understood as ~"laws regarding people unable to speak". It seems like between this and unusual laws 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. The particulars could be considered on the list talk page, but what can't happen is a synthesis of people's opinions of what is "dumb" or "stupid" to come up with an article about those "dumb" and "stupid" things. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I am unable, at this time, to support the deletion of this article, though it may well need to be moved and/or extensively reworked (neither of which is grounds for deletion). I am inclined to think that there is probably scope for an article that includes this subject. The expressions "absurd laws" and "bad laws", for example, both produce hundreds of results in GBooks. Criticism of law is almost certainly a viable topic, since there is a substantial body of opinion that opposes the entire concept of law (both within political and religious movements and traditionally within certain societies, and covered in scholarly publications). Dumb laws doesn't fall into any of the four criteria of INDISCRIMINATE, so that policy is irrelevant, contrary to what is claimed above. James500 (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is clearly notable with lots of sources using the phrase. This is not an indiscriminate list of laws, instead the article is about the subject and even explains how what is called a dumb law often is an exaggeration or an outright hoax. I wouldn't oppose another name, and the list of examples will have to be kept short. As for synthesis, we shouldn't do that, but we can report on other people's synthesis when it's WP:DUE. Sjö (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems well discussed in multiple secondary and scholarly academic sources, with potential for improvement from a Quality improvement project in the future. — Cirt (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's always seemed obvious that non-encyclopedic content of this nature really not ought to get included in WP. What frustrating is that I don't think there is a really specific policy which enunciates that. The best I can come up with is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. NickCT (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently POV article, and one which opens the door to indiscriminate nonsense (What's next? An article called 'Stupid People'? I'm sure I could find plenty of sourcing for that phrase). The problematic nature of the topic gets clear in the article itself, which has quite a bit of opinion and soapboxing. This could be cleaned up, but then you wouldn't really be left with much of an article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We already have an article called Stupidity, and Stupid people redirects to it. James500 (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was ready to go along and !vote delete, but then I read the article. It's not half bad, and is well-written and properly sourced. Perhaps it just needs a new title and loving care. As the lawyer asked the the hostile witness, "Isn't it true that we still incubate articles?" Bearian (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bearian: - Agree with your characterization of "not half bad", but curious whether we have a policy that says being "half bad, and is well-written and properly sourced" is grounds for inclusion on WP? NickCT (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, of course not. I am citing WP:IAR. Bearian (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• For an example of how an article on this topic could be done, see chapter 5 (titled "imperfect rules") of "How to do Things with Rules" by Twining and Miers. James500 (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2014 (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.