Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Threat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Threat AfD closure
So in the end, is the consensus of the AfD discussion that this article be kept as it is, with no title change? -Eric (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing at Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page that indicates that a page can't be moved after it survives an AfD. In my opinion, in this instance, we're not talking about a petulant desire to destroy the page because you can't stand its continued existence. It's clearly good faith. :) Renaming the page would create a new redirect from the original name, and the original page is not destroyed. Since there's already a disambig on top, the best alternative might be to rename the page so to preserve the history and turn the new redirect into a disambiguation page, directing to three articles--the newly titled one, the film already referenced & the general article on pain. I'm not an administrator, but I'd be comfortable making that change. --Moonriddengirl 13:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, no, I won't rest until all memory of it has been erased! Just kidding. Your plan sounds good, but what's the "general article on pain"? What did you think about my last response on the project page? -Eric (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. :) It's been a busy week, and I missed this one. I'd personally be more inclined to simply move it to Threat (international law) unless we get another kind of threat (international law) and need to disambiguate another step deeper in. :) I'm not ready to go to arms over it, however. The general article on pain is my getting two AfDs confused. (We went through something similar with the article on agony quite recently. Oops!) What I meant to suggest was creating a disambiguation to the general article on Coercion, which is currently a "see also." --Moonriddengirl 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- No prob. What did you think about my "public international law" finding/idea? (my last response on the project page) -Eric (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what you mean. :) Are you asking what I think about calling it "Threat of force (public international law)"? --Moonriddengirl 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, because the int'l law component of the Threat article seems to be the part people find notable, and because when I poked around on the net, I found that there were mentions of the concept of "threat of force" in "public international law," but no real occurrence--and no definitions--of simply "threat" in "international law." I'm no expert in the int'l law domain, but I have done a ton of research on terms in various disciplines for my work, and I can size up pretty quickly during a search if a given term is commonly used. Whaddayathink? -Eric (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say go ahead, then, with the title that you prefer. --Moonriddengirl 23:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, because the int'l law component of the Threat article seems to be the part people find notable, and because when I poked around on the net, I found that there were mentions of the concept of "threat of force" in "public international law," but no real occurrence--and no definitions--of simply "threat" in "international law." I'm no expert in the int'l law domain, but I have done a ton of research on terms in various disciplines for my work, and I can size up pretty quickly during a search if a given term is commonly used. Whaddayathink? -Eric (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what you mean. :) Are you asking what I think about calling it "Threat of force (public international law)"? --Moonriddengirl 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- No prob. What did you think about my "public international law" finding/idea? (my last response on the project page) -Eric (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. :) It's been a busy week, and I missed this one. I'd personally be more inclined to simply move it to Threat (international law) unless we get another kind of threat (international law) and need to disambiguate another step deeper in. :) I'm not ready to go to arms over it, however. The general article on pain is my getting two AfDs confused. (We went through something similar with the article on agony quite recently. Oops!) What I meant to suggest was creating a disambiguation to the general article on Coercion, which is currently a "see also." --Moonriddengirl 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, no, I won't rest until all memory of it has been erased! Just kidding. Your plan sounds good, but what's the "general article on pain"? What did you think about my last response on the project page? -Eric (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
