Deletion of List of strange laws

Comment: The topic is well sourced and so passes .  Note that, not only are there numerous books on the topic, but the topic is covered by mainstream media such as the BBC and officialdom such as the Law Commission and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office.  The list entries are all blue links such as the famous chewing gum ban in Singapore.  The list therefore performs the useful encyclopedic purpose of indexing our articles of this sort.  It is not indiscriminate as care has been taken to only include such well-sourced cases for which we have articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: This is . It's impossible to determine membership in this list because, as the nominator points out, it's entirely subjective. For example, the chewing gum ban in Singapore makes complete sense to me and the statute forbidding Bearing of Armour made sense when it was enacted. Some legal scholars say that prostitution law in Canada is strange because it prohibits solicitation but not actual prostitution. Should it be on the list? Even if we could agree on what is strange this would be unmaintainable if we include every strange law from the Babylonians to present day town ordinances
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: as Andrew D. says fufils . Also reasons for nomination are weak:  is not applicable, as most reasonable persons would find these laws strange, maybe not always when they were they were passed (Wearing armour in Parliament), but are mighty strange they are still laws. Therefore  also does not apply, unless it could be argued that these laws where not notable in themselves
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:NPOV||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)