Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individuals with powers of arrest

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 merge to Powers of arrest or another relevant article if there is consensus to do so. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals with powers of arrest

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

Not remotely encyclopaedic; different people have different powers in different places and under different circumstances. Also entirely unsourced and wildly generalising. Previously asked author to consider another possible ___location for the content. ninety:one 14:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not about individuals at all, but about groups of people. It would be better to approach the topic (which is certainly notable and important) from the direction of an article on Powers of arrest or even on just Arrest, than an article on people having the power to arrest (which according to the article can include anyone in some circumstances.) Borock (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have Power of arrest already - there is nothing useful to be gained by having an article of this title. For example, the current list for the United Kingdom could be replaced by "Everyone" as everyone has some powers of arrest in the UK.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge possibly with the article on Powers of arrest? Or rename to Groups with powers of arrest perhaps? Firstly, the article links to other sources within Wikipedia which explain the facts behind the powers of arrest being available to various individuals. Also, ninety appears to work for the police yet has a problem with anyone other than a police constable having powers of arrest. The fact that he/she does not like this does not take away the fact of the there being a legal power available to others. It should also be noted that Wikipedia contains many articles which are a portal or list to other articles, for example:

Also, ninety disputes the factual accuracy of the article, yet none of it is factually incorrect. There are laws to support the powers of arrest for each e.g. in England/Wales the Immigration Act 1971, PACE, common law, Companies Consolidation Act, etc. Finally, as User:Pontificalibus has stated - literally everyone does have power of arrest, but I think he/she is missing the point - the power of arrest vary significantly depending on the person/role leopheard (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leopheard, the argument you're trying to make is known as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am not suggesting that this should be deleted merely because it is a list - goodness knows we even have featured lists - but because of the reasons I stated in the nomination.

I haven't disputed the factual accuracy of the article at all - I have no idea where you've got that from! Neither do I have any idea where you might have got the idea that I'm a police officer from - I'm not! Similarly confusing is your suggestion that I "do not like... anyone other than a police constable having powers of arrest" - I'm the one who has added content about the powers of prison officers, water bailiffs, court bailiffs, customs/immigration officers and the Serjeant at Arms; it's something I personally find extremely interesting, and I've created infoboxes like Template:Law_enforcement_in_the_United_Kingdom to try and widen awareness of this. I just don't think this list is particularly useful or effective. However, what could be both useful and effective is trying to shift the focus of Law enforcement in the United Kingdom away from just being about the the police, and rather covering all the other law enforcement agencies as well (and therefore the powers of their officers). Perhaps you might be able to take part in this?

With regard to merging this article with Powers of arrest - I didn't know that article existed, and I can't see how it would differ from what is covered in arrest, so I would suggest merging those two anyway. ninety:one 17:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I agree that the complexities of the law are very interesting. I would say distributing and expanding the powers of each group mentioned into Law enforcement in the United Kingdom would be a good idea, and perhaps merging with the more general articles on arrest leopheard (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Borock, and Pon. No objection to merger into existing articles. THF (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge selectively back into Powers of arrest and/or peace officer. Do not throw out the babies with the bathwater. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not enough here for an article, but no reason to delete good accurate content.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , renaming as "groups..." --something called a list of individuals is expected to be a list of people. Appropriate index article, t=like 1000s of othersx.

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.