Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police cadet


 * 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. Stub could use expansion but not deletion. (non-admin closure) --  Dane talk  02:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Police cadet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Purely original research. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep It's just a stub that hardly says anything at all. What this needs is expansion, not deletion.Andrew D. (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with on this matter. The topic is notable and a book called Police Education and Training in a Global Society includes significant coverage of this topic. We should expand and reference this article,  not delete it. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  08:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs expanding, but notable subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Police academy. The article as it currently stands is an expanded dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article, and is attempting to cover two distinct topics that merely share a common terminology: trainee police officers and youth organizations. TJRC (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really separate subjects and redirecting to police academy would rule out the other uses. British police cadets, for example, were something entirely different again (neither members of a youth organisation nor trainees at a police academy). The article certainly needs expansion, but it should not be either deleted or redirected to an article which excludes its other meanings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. needs to be expanded greatly. L3X1 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2017 (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.