Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultra posse nemo obligatur


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to List of Latin phrases (U). Editors are free to Merge content to other articles as long as attribution is given. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ultra posse nemo obligatur

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary ComputerUserUser (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 8.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhere. Do we not have a list of law Latin phrases? BD2412  T 00:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We have a List of Latin phrases (U) that would be appropriate. I'll add a !vote now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  00:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a poor article, but a merge to Impossibility (which is about the concept in contract law, not ontology) or some other law-related article seems appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I note that the article I referred to has since moved to Impossibility of performance. Cnilep (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Latin legal terms per above and per our policy about words as subjects. I've blocked the nominator for incompetence and general inflexibility, as shown in the nomination statement. Graham87 (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. There are numerous entire book chapters and entire periodical articles on this. A legal maxim such as "ad impossibilia nemo tenetur" or "nemo tenetur ad impossibilia" is a rule of law (ie the command of a sovereign which is reinforced by a sanction), and is not "just a phrase", so NOTDICTIONARY and WORDISSUBJECT are simply not relevant. This maxim is just a restatement of the rule that a person is not legally obliged to do the impossible. This particular rule certainly satisfies GNG, as you can see from the chapter Broome's Legal Maxims, who formulates the maxim as "Lex non cogit ad impossibilia", the articles in Trayner's Scottish Legal Maxims , this periodical article in the Canadian Law Times , this Italian article which has it as "ad impossibilia nemo tenetur" , this article which has it as "impossibilium nulla obligatio est" , this chapter in Zimmerman , this chapter in Black  and from the many, many, many, many, many other sources which discuss this rule and concept in immense detail. It might be appropriate to move the page to another name for the maxim or concept, whether in Latin or English. This should not be merged unless there actually is another article covering this concept directly, which I cannot find. Impossibility is presently about contract law, whereas the maxim has a wider scope. The maxim applies, for example, to statutory construction and criminal law  and prerogative orders (Broome) and evidence . In English law the maxim "Lex non cogit ad impossibilia" seems to have existed long before Taylor v Caldwell in 1863 (which is the date given in Impossibility), and is included in Coke on Littleton  and Coke's Reports  in the 17th century. This article should not be merged with the article presently located at the page name Impossibility. As far as I can tell, the article Impossibility is about the doctrine of impossibility of performance in contract law. Although the doctrine of impossibility of performance in contract law appears to be an application of the maxim "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" , the contract law doctrine is not identical to the maxim (which also has other applications), and the contract law doctrine is idependently notable of the maxim, which is the parent topic of the contract law doctrine. The contract law doctrine satisfies GNG, and is the subject of entire books , entire chapters of many other books in Google Books, and many entire periodical articles in HeinOnline eg         amongst others. As the contract law doctrine is independently notable, we should not repurpose Impossibility to include material other than the contract law doctrine. Indeed there is so much coverage of both the maxim and the contract law doctrine that we could not possibly fit both topics into the same article. (The article would either become WP:TOOBIG or would omit necessary information in violation of PRESERVE). Indeed there is so much coverage of the contract law doctrine that there can be no doubt we will have to WP:SPLIT its article at some point. It might be appropriate to move Impossibility to eg Impossibility in contract law or Impossibility of performance or Doctrine of impossibility of performance or the like. It is not obvious whether "impossibility" is the common name either (WP:COMMONNAME). It is not obvious whether "impossibility as a legal excuse" is the primary topic for "impossibility" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). It would not be surprising if impossibility per se was a notable topic in science, mathematics, philosophy or the like. There do seem to be a lot of philosophy sources for logical, nomological, metaphysical, physical, alethic and epistemic impossibility, for example. Likewise for mathematical impossibility: . James500 (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It might be possible to move this page to Impossibility (law). It would be impossible to merge this page to any existing Wikipedia article, because there is no existing article that could serve as a merger target. James500 (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. Clearly more than a dictionary definition, though it could be explained more clearly than it currently is.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Latin phrases (U) which will then be transcluded into List of Latin phrases (full). The phrase is in the list but the notes field is blank and may be updated with information from this page. I think it is not just a legal term, so this is the best target, but note that the information may also be copied to List of Latin legal terms using the same format as in the other list. It currently has no entry in that latter list. I note Graham87 suggests the latter list as the merge target. To be clear, if it achieves consensus, I would be fine with that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge to the list of terms, as suggested, or Impracticability under the law, of which this is a fork. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not a fork of impracticability. Impossibility and impracticability are absolutely not the same thing in English law. England does not have the Uniform Commercial Code, and English law should not be viewed through the POV lens of the UCC's attempt to abolish "impossibility" as a separate test in contract law. English law has largely resisted allowing impracticability as an excuse for non-performance of contract at all. See Downes, Textbook on Contract, 4th Edition, p 302. I suspect the same may be true of other commonwealth countries. As far as I am aware, impossibility and impracticability were not originally the same thing in American contract law, and I do not see any evidence that they are even now the same thing in American criminal law, or the American law of statutory interpretation, etc. I do not see any evidence of any criminal defence of "impracticability", any presumption of statutory interpretation against "impracticability", any rule that "impracticability" is an excuse for disobeying an order of mandamus, or so on, anywhere in the world. James500 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2024 (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.