Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perjury in Nigeria


 * 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. It is clear this article is need of improvement to remove the problems identified here, but it appears these problems do not rise to such a level that the only choice is to delete it entirely. Consensus does not appear to favor the view that the topic itself is invalid. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Perjury in Nigeria

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced essay / original research. A long way from being a Wikipedia article. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. It is referenced to a number of pieces of legislation (I would have thought that the meaning of "section ... of the Nigerian Penal Code" was perfectly clear, unless there is more than one) and to a number of cases, although the citation of the cases is clearly not adequate. I suspect that "Phillpots", for example, is R v Phillpots (1851) 2 Den 302, which is available online from CommonLII if you want to check. "R v Threlfall" is certainly R v Threlfall, 10 Cr App R 112. It is also referenced to Working Paper No 33 of the Law Commission which is on BAILII. And I can see a reference to Coke's Institutes, which is on Google Books, as well. The sources of much of this could probably be clarified quite quickly. I say this without prejudice to the question of original research/original synthesis. James500 (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Mostly because it's an essay / original research, but also because there's no compelling reason that "Perjury in Nigeria" needs to be spun off from the existing article Perjury. I'd recommend that James500 (above) read our policies on original research and reliable sources to understand why legal citations and law commission reports (which are primary sources) are not acceptable foundations for a Wikipedia article.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not say that they were not primary sources (although law reports and printed copies of legislation are secondary sources in so far as they are evidence of what was said), I merely said that the article was not unreferenced. James500 (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And I recommend that you read up on the rule of law that says that textbooks, with certain exceptions, are not authority for, or evidence of, any proposition of law. James500 (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your points above, both in principle and in specific reference to the legal concepts you mention. However, you are not in court presenting a case; you are writing an encyclopaedic article.  "Authority" in the legal sense (that is, legal precedent) has nothing to do with "reliable sources" in an encyclopaedic sense.  You may also be getting confused between the legal concepts of "primary and secondary evidence" and the academic concepts of "primary and secondary sources".  The report of a court case is the primary source in regards to that court case; it is a direct transcription, with some small headnoting, of the judge's decision delivered in the case.  It provides no additional context that could not have been gained by standing in court on the day the decision was delivered (although it may be easier to read and have some artefacts of the spoken word omitted).  (I am speaking here from personal experience - court reporting is my job.)  A legal article in Wikipedia should be based not on reports and transcripts, but rather on the subsequent analysis and discussion of those cases.  Further, please note that (a) Wikipedia policy SPECIFICALLY names legal reports as primary sources for Wikipedia purposes, and (b) that an article referenced entirely to primary sources is, for Wikipedia purposes, unreferenced.  Wikipedia relies on ANALYTICAL sources to found articles - that is, sources, that provide analysis, context or criticism of data, rather than merely a transcription of it.  To put it another way, a Wikipedia article should not look at disparate events and explain their significance - it should merely quote someone else, who has already done that work. If you're still confused, please take the time to thoroughly read our policies on sourcing as they may explain the situation better than I am able to. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR. Time to rewrite the policy. (I should say that I do appreciate that this particular article does have serious problems, viz that it is written like an essay, seems to substantially duplicate an essay on Wikiversity, contains material on English law that probably belongs elsewhere, some of it appears wholly unsourced, and some of the sources are sufficiently unclear that further research would be required to determine what they are, although I could guess at where a lot of this is coming from, because the names of the cases and at least some of the details match what is in Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice and I can guess at who (Sir James Fitzjames) Stephen and (William/Serjeant) Hawkins are aswell.) James500 (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at these policies closely, I am not seeing any assertion that legislation and cases are not reliable sources as regards determining what the law is. James500 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is because Wikipedia is completely uninterested in what the law is. It's an encyclopaedia; it's only interested in what people have SAID the law is.  Encyclopaedias don't deal in objective truth, they deal in what reliable secondary sources have reported the truth to be.  Please look at some of our Good and Featured Articles on legal topics for an example.  Roe v. Wade is a good example; case citations are used there to direct the reader to the primary sources for their further information, but the article itself is founded exclusively on secondary and tertiary sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As this article cites a number of textbooks, this is no longer an issue for this AfD. James500 (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Also, saying that perjury in Nigerian law should not have been split from Perjury is an argument for merger, not deletion. James500 (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC) I am not seeing any assertion that legislation and cases are not reliable sources as regards determining what people have said the law is either. James500 (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Still maintaining my Delete vote) I have reassessed the article in light of the improvements. I still argue to delete.  The article is still fundamentally unencyclopaedic.  It's presented in an essay style, complete with conclusion section.  It's written in a way that hints at original research ("this tends to suggest", "may be regarded as", "however, if the provisions of the Indian Penal Code is to be used").  The article may well be improvable, but in order to fix the WP:NOT problem any such improvement would have to start by deleting all of the text except the reference list and beginning from scratch; the article should accordingly be deleted on WP:NOT grounds with no prejudice against re-creation in an acceptable format. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hints at original research? Check the sources and tell me that it is original research. That said, a bald statement such as "section 117 of the Criminal Code says, and I quote, X", unless it is inaccurate, is not objectionable and would qualify for merger even if we did not retain a separate article. James500 (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, even if we deleted everything except the sources, a list of cases that are relevant to a particular subject is, in of itself, encyclopedic (though obviously less than ideal). James500 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, I have not finished improving the article. James500 (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. An IP has added a list of references to the bottom of the article. They include a number of textbooks. James500 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Provisionally, I think that it might be possible to fix this article. James500 (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * keep I thought it was possible to fix as it did include references, although hidden in the text or lost off the draft; and the topic is encyclopedic as named. The original name was very essay like but the material on perjury included is largely suitable for an article.  A bit of pruning can take out the opinion and persuasive language and leave the factual content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Another editor has nominated this article for speedy deletion on grounds of CSD G4. James500 (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The previous AfD is Articles for deletion/Evading Justice - Perjury as a related offence. James500 (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * as this article is sourced, and the earlier one was not, I think it needs a new discussion--I'm declining the speedy. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Law of (Whatever) in a particular country is a valid encyclopedic topic. Some editing is needed, but most of it is usable. The Public Policy program last year resulted in many similarly detailed articles, and it looks like the Global Ambassadors Program this year will also. We have hundreds of articles on  law that say what the law is based on the legislation and cases brought under it. If they are appeal court decisions, we do accept them as definitive statements until overturned--this matches the reality in the world. An appeal court's summary of the law is as authoritative as any source can possibly be, and is a secondary source within the proper meaning of the term, since it's based on the interpretation of the other cases by a named person in a position of authority.  I agree it is best to confirm this by having a reference from a textbook to confirm   the standard interpretation, but it isn't necessary .   DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The page history may be needed to maintain attribution for this. James500 (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Remark struck. James500 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would turn that comment on it head: since Evading Justice - Perjury as a related offence exists, why do we need it here as well? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably because we intend to [expand], redact, rephrase and rearrange it until it looks like an article. James500 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Word in brackets added. James500 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article now contains material that is not, as far as I can see, included in the essay on Wikiversity. James500 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * At this moment, I am unable to agree that this article should be deleted. I am undecided on the possibility of merger. James500 (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or stubify as WP:OR. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article does not consist exclusively of original research. James500 (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, but only if it's first hacked to bits - This is certainly a topic that we should have an article on, so no issue there. But I'm seeing a lot of OR and unusable mush, some of it possibly even a copyvio. It's gonna need serious work.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly a copyvio? Is it or isn't it? James500 (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC) And what? And from where? James500 (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Also AfD is not cleanup. The fact that an article needs to be "hacked to bits" or requires "serious work" is not a reason to delete it. It should not be deleted if it is capable of being fixed. James500 (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The only verbatim text I can find duplicates the Wikiversity article - though I have not checked everything. That said, much of this article duplicates the wikiversity article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not a problem as it comes from the same person who posted it here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep the original rationale for deletion no longer applies. Kanatonian (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My comments above should be construed as a default keep. James500 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2011 (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.