Deletion of Legal abuse

Comment: by nominator). This article appears to have begun as something of a disambiguation page, where the creator, as part of a broader project to create a vast network of DABs for various uses of the word "abuse", gathered together any law-related topic that anyone ever referred to, or the editor imagined as some kind of "abuse". Initially unsourced, a number of self-published sources that fail as  had been added in an effort to prop this up, which have now been removed.  It is certainly true, that if you look at the various search engine results, there are any number of sources, reliable and unreliable, which may call this or that thing or process "abuse". There is a well defined common law and statutory tort Abuse of process; there is a standard of judicial review Abuse of discretion; what there is not is a accepted category called "legal abuse" which encompasses all of the things or even any of the things being included in this article. No scholarly publication, text, or treatise does so. It is not a term of art or usage in the profession. It is not used in that sense by reliable news organizations or publications, nor in any other reliable press.  What this article amounts to is  and , compiling a list of anything the editor imagines might go wrong, or result in a unfavorable outcome,  by design, accident, negligence or whatever at any point in the civil or criminal legal process, and labeling it "abuse". Because no reliable secondary source does so, it violates the core policies of  and  and fails the notability guideline of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:LISTN)

Comment: Pure  due to lack of references, seems to be hugely in violation of . Also, a small trout to the genius who decided to tag each section as unreferenced, instead of just tagging the whole article as a whole as unreferenced. I can definitely see a valid article with this name, but this may as well be deleted and restarted from scratch
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: there's definitely a valid article in there, but I don't think the current unsourced mess is that article. Legal abuse is definitely a widely covered subject, but it needs to be built 100% around  (not even using non-RS for trivial things), and that's what this article is not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)