Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nulla poena pro vitium Abyssus

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 speedy delete. Hoax. And praise to the AFD participants for the thorough, well-reasoned, and well-informed discussion below. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nulla poena pro vitium Abyssus[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I suspect that this article is a hoax, for the following reasons:

The grammar is incorrect. "Nulla poena pro vitio abyssi" would be correct Latin, although still strangely poetical: "no penalty for the fault of the abyss".
I cannot find any sources outside Wikipedia (and copies of Wikipedia) that contain the title, in either correct or incorrect Latin.
Courtney Stanhorpe Kenny's A Selection of Cases Illustrative of English Criminal Law is real, and several editions are available on Google Books, which do record the case Rex v. Huggins, 1730, but this case does not correspond to the one here (it concerns whether a master is criminally liable for his servant's unauthorized acts).
The block quotation has some strange phrasing, even for the time: what does "amongst innate supplicants" mean?
There does not seem to have been a Criminal Justice Act in 1929; see our list. Lesgles (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lesgles (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lesgles (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither the whole phrase, not even substantial parts of the phrase, appear in any of the major legal databases, or in Google Scholar, or in books. The case is not to be found either. I note that the only edits made by the article creator were for the creation of this article. Even if this was created by mistake, there are no sources to support its existence, so it would fail the WP:GNG. bd2412 T 01:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax (G3). I checked the one source and the relevant page appears to be a discussion about a case on forgeries! The relevant principle seems to be invalid anyway - English Courts do seem to take into account convictions obtained in foreign countries in some circumstances - e.g. R v Ford (1921) 15 Cr App R 176: “It would be entirely against the public interest to exclude convictions outside the jurisdiction of this Court being taken into consideration by a judge when passing sentence.” Bookscale (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax, albeit a moderately imaginative one. In addition to the points made above, the article claims that the principle was abolished by s29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1929, which does not exist. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delenda est as a dolus. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Checking Wikipedia to see whether there was a Criminal Justice Act of 1929 is not proper verification. So I checked the U.K. government's list. It's not there. Uncle G (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for doing that! It's good to know for sure. Lesgles (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2019 (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.