Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognizable offense


 * 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 and move to cognizable offence. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Cognizable offense

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No sources; not notable; Wikipedia is not a dictionary Dr.enh (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. To start with, this isn't a U.S. legal term at all (nor is "cognizable offense," as we would spell it), and to the extent it appears in cases it just means "recognized offense (under some statute)," and has nothing to do with when the police may arrest a person.  I've therefore removed all the reference to U.S. law.  On the other hand, this does seem to be a meaningful concept in Indian, and maybe Pakistani, law, as the search here indicates.  Since I really don't know anything about Indian or Pakistani law I'll leave it to others to judge the merits of the sources, but to the extent this is a legal concept it seems at least marginally notable and is not a dictionary definition.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 02:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) UPDATE Duh, the article spells it the American way.  FWIW, I think the Indian sources have, as one might expect, "offence."
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tentative delete. At the moment, this is really a dictionary entry, though I could be persuaded otherwise if someone cites to something Indian that shows that there's real legal controversy or dispute over whether something is cognizable, and thus something encyclopedic about the term. THF (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is encyclopedic. Here is an official source . There are a number of controversies about what is a cognizable offense and its implementation the latest one being Ruchika Girhotra Case,, , , ,
 * Keep. In my view this is a notable legal concept as opposed to a mere dictionary definition. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but move to cognizable offence, the spelling in Indian English. Notability is not an issue as shown by the sources listed above, and others available on Google Books. An encyclopedic article can clearly be written on this legal subject, although it would take a motivated editor with knowledge of Indian law to do so. Abecedare (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The provision of sources above convinces me that it has been the source of much discussion. Also note the distinction between a concept and a definition, and please for God's sake move it to its proper title. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:32, 8 January 2010 (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.