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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 05:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Police stop, search, detention and arrest powers in the United Kingdom

[edit]

The page is out of date, needs a lot of updating, and will need regular updating. It has been tagged to be updated for over 6 months, and noone has done this. TFoxton 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook may also apply. Instruction manuals... Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. --TFoxton 22:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because it requires updating and regular maintenance isn't a reason to delete the article. As long as people know it's out-of-date until someone comes along to update it, there's no reason to delete it. --GorillaWarfare ^talk 22:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs improvement and updating, but is totally legitimate. I don't see how this can be considered a manual/guidebook case. --Targeman 23:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate topic with some useful information. If we deleted every page that needed improvement/updating we'd have a lot fewer pages. Can it be brought to the attention of a relevant Wikiproject for updating/maintenance? Espresso Addict 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with User:Espresso Addict and co, as long as people know it's out of date I don't see the harm in it remaining until it's updated. RBlowes 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I can't see this going any other way, and an out-of-date article is not a reason for deletion, but for editing. I DO recommend renaming to Police powers in the United Kingdom or Law enforcement powers in the United Kingdom. That covers the content and is less awkward. CaveatLector^Talk 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep per above. Rationale is for cleanup not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds that this is a WP:POV fork from various other articles that cover the topic in more detail, inlcuding Stop and search, Detention (imprisonment),Arrest, Anti-terrorism legislation and Public Order Act. No wonder this article could not be maintained as it straddles 5 different Acts of parliament covered in more detail in other articles. This article is an Amalgamation of too many other articles to be of any use, not to mention the problems of maintaining it identified by TFoxton. --Gavin Collins 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Strong Keep as per CaveatLector, TenPound Hammer, RBlowes, Targeman, Espresso Addict, and GorillaWarfare. Yes, it needs a bit of improvement, but that is not Grounds for deletion. I might add a legal disclaimer (a la Allocation questionnaire) or a link to the standard legal disclaimer. It is axionomic that "The law is vast and constantly changing." I would argue that all legal articles need to updated periodically. That is why we have a WikiProject:Law. That is also why I have here at WP in the first place -- to help my students. If we deleted every legal article for the reason that it is out of date, WP would be bereft of legal research, and thus a valuable tertiary source for college (paralegal) and law students. I am happy to jump in and fix it per the Heyman doctrine. Bearian 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy for the required policy on deleting articles and the reasons therefore, and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer for the wording of the specifics for legal articles. Bearian 21:13, 1 August 2007 (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.