Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individuals with powers 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. postdlf (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Individuals with powers of a Constable

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete for lack of sources, it appears to be all original research. This is a list and fails WP:Stand-alone lists: which states: Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. This list lacks adequate criteria, lacks reference to sources that would establish those criteria, lacks necessary background information and references to sources for that background information, and lastly fails to provide encyclopaedic context. See also Manual of Style/Lead section. It is best to remove it. So far as I can tell this information if properly cited would belong, not as a list, but as a discussion comparing the various duties and powers of police and quasi-police officials in the UK, as such it would have a totally different title, or be part of another article. I am sure that there are Police Science textbooks that would prove valuable in such an endeavor. No redirect to Constable as it is not a likely search term. --Bejnar (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. Even if this were to be kept, it's a huge mess. On a substantive note, it is a list of comparing other citrus fruits to oranges. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is now having references added. The people with powers of a constable are a clearly defined group. To add them to the Constable article wouldn't make sense and would be confusing. The public are generally unaware of what employees other than the Police do and this is a source of tension. This article is only designed to clarify this. Leopheard (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2015 UTC
 * Constable powers are not uniary. The powers of these various officials vary considerably.  A list is not a useful presentation for disparate information.  No one is suggesting at this point adding the "list" to the Constable article.  What makes you think that people with powers of a constable are a clearly defined group. Do you have a citation to a reliable source that says that? My experience is that neither the "powers of a constable" nor the class of officials with arrest powers are clearly defined. Often they are individually defined, but not as a group.  For example, the citation added to the article for "special constables" says nothing at all about their powers. --Bejnar (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    06:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Some positions in the UK have their powers of search and seizure legally defined as "the powers and privileges of a constable". But the use of that phrase in law is not a topic. It does not, and cannot, satisfy WP:LISTN, because there has been no nontrivial, reliable, third-party discussion of the merits of that particular verbiage. And by the article's own admission, the phrasing is what matters; other positions that have search and seizure powers in common with a constable are not included if they are do not share the same legislative definition. And, of course, none of this applies in any other country, where the position of constable may have more (or fewer) powers, shared with entirely disjunct lists of other offices. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * [b]Merge[/b] The deletion of this article will not clarify the confusion that exists with the public when it comes to an individual who is clearly not a Constable but is exercising the powers of. "How is he able to do that when he's not a bobby?". There are countless examples in the media where trading standards have been obstructed, Environment Agency bailiffs or PCSOs assaulted, not to mention a plethora of inaccurate articles explaining the difference between a PCSO and PC yet have many inaccuracies. It is only pertinent to the law enforcement area on Wikipedia to at least cover the basics on the differences and where they come from. Also, there are plenty of other places that use the term Constable for law enforcement e.g. Texas. As whether they have Constables and those with the power of, I am unsure as yet leopheard (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The simple anser is No. See WP:NOLEGAL.  The more complex answer is, as I said above, constable powers are not uniary. One might be able to do a large table, just for England and Wales, that listed a number of specific powers cross-indexed against various offcials, but that would not be this article, which as detailed above has a number of problems including, but not limited to, an over-broad scope, lack of reliable criteria, and a basic failure to understand legislative delegation. Just for fun, you might read the Texas constable article and see just how different they are from the English version. --Bejnar (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2015 (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.