Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power of a Constable

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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Power of a Constable

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

Confused article that doesn't cover anything that couldn't be included in Powers of the police in England and Wales. ninety:one 21:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. There are more and more people who have powers of a constable and it makes sense to cover this. It helps clarify the confusion the public have over police/quasi-police roles and wikipedia aims to deliver accurate information. To not cover this article would add to this confusion. And yes, what these deletion requests fail to acknowledge is that articles grow over time and wikipedia shouldn't expect a dissertation as soon as the article has been created. leopheard (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And to include it in Police powers for E/W doesn't make sense as someone might have police powers but the power may not necessarily be that of a constable e.g. PCSO searching for alcohol isn't a power of a constable but other powers they use are. leopheard (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It is not even wrong, it's just a mess. A redirect to police power, a much different concept, would not work. Bearian (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect Constable The phrase is in use with policing-related journals (see GBooks), but I don't find dedicated sources for the exact concept so this redirect makes the most common sense, at least for the time being. See also Individuals with powers of a Constable by the same author. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. --Rubbish computer 22:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the author fails to realise that the powers (note plural) of a constable very considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. See the article Constable. This article makes the assumption that such powers are uniary, indivisible, yet the only citation is to a UK law that makes a specific grant of enumerated powers to constables. On that basis WP:TNT. This article can only help confuse readers over police and quasi-police roles. The article Individuals with powers of a Constable should probably have been included in this Afd for the same reasons. Above that, prior to writing such an article even limited to the UK, an editor should immerse herself in the legal literature regarding such powers, which is extensive if not always coherent. If that had been the case, a better article actually dealing with the topic and with appropriate citations to law could have been the result. Let someone else with a better grasp of the field do just that, ab initio. --Bejnar (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2015 (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.