Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dumb 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 Keep. Renaming can be discussed elsewhere as I see no consensus here. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dumb laws

Dumb laws (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability warning since January, probably non-notable, or original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musor x (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, seems to have decent reliable sources, needs cleanup though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• We have to be careful on this one. To remain NPOV, we can't judge the laws, so an article with this title inherently violates WP:NPOV. Delete, but maybe make mention of it in Chain letter#E-mail. Exobyte 19:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  The article does not purport to label any laws "dumb", instead it documents the "phenomenon" of labeling certain laws as dumb by 3rd party individuals. Thus NPOV is preserved--Hq3473 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There were examples given. The title should be changed. I wouldn't expect to see an article chain emails that talk about dumb laws when I go to the dumb laws page. Exobyte 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wow, I was complaining about how books about "dumb laws" are themselves dumb. Usually, they have no citation to texts. In this case, the article basically points the way to websites about dumb laws. Some of these websites offer the the text of a so-called "dumb law", and the interpretation, to use another legal cliche', wouldn't hold up in court. With regard to this article, it's the worst of both worlds... people who were hoping for an endless list of "funny laws" won't be able to find one; such a list would not be encylopedic anyway. However, those hoping for a substantive, scholarly article about the so-called "internet phenomenon" won't be able to find anything worth quoting, other than that the "dumb law" is a variety of urban legend. There has been intelligent analysis of urban legends, and the same could be done about this as well, but it would be a major undertaking. Mandsford 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• So the fact remains, there is the phenomenon of publishing books and internet list of "dumb laws", without giving proper cites, and in all likelihood making up those laws. Phenomenon is probably notable seeing as there are published books listing "dumb" laws, and publications mentioning those books. For example there is a printed article in Boston Globe, reviewing the dumb law books: ("FUNNY LOOK AT SILLY LAWS WARRANTS A READ" The Boston Globe, September 14, 2006 Thursday THIRD EDITION). If the article is badly written, it should be reduced to a stub, and later re-written, not deleted.--Hq3473 03:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Mandsford Corpx 02:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• 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]. 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. Edison 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename and keep to Dumb law hoaxes per Edison. Bearian 20:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. The allegations of such laws are not presented on the internet only, there was for example a segment on such strange rules in America's Dumbest Criminals as well. Since they are the butt of joke lists in many different media, the phenomenon is clearly worthy of some encyclopedic discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Good article, shows research and provides a good summary of the phenom. Salvatore22 22:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. IP198 18:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. I expected to read a totally subjective and original research based article, but I was mistaken. This article has a substantial number of reliable sources which identify these "dumb laws" so I see no harm in keeping this. Burntsauce 20:51, 27 August 2007 (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.