Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Committal procedure

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Committal procedure

[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)

Is this any different from a Preliminary hearing? If they are describing the same concept, then committal procedure should be deleted and redirected to preliminary hearing. On the other hand, if they are different concepts, then the articles should probably be merged and the differences elaborated upon. I am not a lawyer or otherwise an expert in comparative criminal law (though I find it fascinating); which is why I am starting a discussion rather than just going ahead and merging or redirecting. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They are different topics, sometimes just in name, other times in procedure, depending on the legal jurisdiction. AFD is the wrong place to be. The matter of possible merger of the two topics should be held on the talk pages. Deletion will be inappropriate but there might be a redirect if a merge took place. Thincat (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. Committal procedure is not the same thing as a preliminary hearing. In Australia, a defendant could be committed for trial without a preliminary hearing if he said he did not want one: [1] [2]. For example, see in particular sections 101B and 101C(b)(iii) of the Justices Act, 1902 (aka the Justices Act, 1902-1976) as inserted by section 6 of the Justices Act Amendment Act 1976 of Western Australia: [3]. The point is that a preliminary hearing is only part of the committal proceedings or process, and it is not even necessarily a mandatory part of the proceedings or process. Further, in the United Kingdom, it was possible for a person to be committed for sentencing in the Crown Court after he has been convicted in the magistrates court: [4]. The point is that "committal" refers to being sent from one court to another. Further, a person can be committed to prison for contempt of court. And AfD is not WP:PROPMERGE. James500 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems to mostly cover the Australian system. Which doesn't make it bad. I think it should be expanded to include, for example, the United States. also that more emphasis should be put on the point that the shared traits are only in common law systems and others are quite different. Elinruby (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This could be procedural close here because the nominator doesn't offer a strong rationale for why this article merits deletion and has more questions than proposals.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage by reliable independent sources to meet GNG. Serratra (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC) — Serratra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James500 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Serratra has asked me to prove the obvious: This topic has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles. There are entire books on this topic. See, for example, Clifford E M Chatterton and Philip K Brown, "Committals for Trial to the Crown Court: The Law and Practice", Fourmat Publishing, London, 1988. There is probably a chapter on this topic in every book on criminal procedure, and in many books on criminal law, for many countries in the commonwealth, from at least the 1930s onwards. There are many periodical articles that are entirely about this topic. See, for example: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]; "From Committal Proceedings to Transfer for Trial": [18]; "Publicity for Committal Proceedings": [19] [20]; "Effect of Lapse of Time on Committal Proceedings": [21]; "Committal Proceedings - Adversarial or Inquisitorial?": [22]; "Committal for Trial by Quarter Sessions": [23]. And see also the chapter in the article: [24]. And the book and periodical articles listed above are only a fraction of the massive, massive, massive coverage that this topic has received. James500 (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per James500 and his sources.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tentatively per WP:HEY, if the sources found are added to the article. There are plenty of legal articles where the procedure is unique to a single jurisdiction; see Auslegeschrift and Allocation questionnaire. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2023 (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.