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 as nominator gave no clear technical reason to delete. Editors should bring the discussion in a more appropriate place than AFD. @pple complain 09:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal law

[edit]

Previously proposed deletion objected to. All entries on this disambiguation page are unrelated to the name of the article. (1) Universal law is not synonymous with physical law. (2) Universal law as a legal term is not in Black's Law Dictionary, nor am I able to identify any such similar use. Note also that clicking on this disambiguation just links back to this page. (3) The two "see also" tems are only relevant as containing the word "universal" and would not likely be confused with "universal law". Redirecting to the other articles may be inappropriate, as it might be the case that universal law does refer to some independent concept that could be the subject of a future article. Bsherr 20:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - shouldn't this be in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so, because it's a disambiguation, not a redirect. Bsherr 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly fine and necessary Wikipedia:Disambiguation page (although it could easily be developed into it an article, if that is the aim of the nominator? I admit I don't understand the deletion argument.) The concept "universal law" is used in articles about psychology (Universal law of generalization), ethics (Categorical imperative: (Kant's words, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"), Ethical formalism, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals), and also in articles such as Mythopoeic thought, Robert Grosseteste, Ahmed Hulusi, Models of scientific inquiry#Logical empiricism, etc, etc. Obviously, it's a common and well-known concept, and therefore deserves an entry. Pia 09:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conversion to an article would be be a fine aim. My concern is limited to the use of the page as a disambiguation. I can only speak to the concept in legal practice and in science, but not in the social sciences. I see the circular link has been fixed. The solution would then be to delete the first reference and the disambiguation tag. Bsherr 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've gone ahead and modified the article accordingly. Does it look right to you? Bsherr 17:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bsherr, simply deleting other uses of a term because you are not familiar with them ("can only speak to the concept in legal practice and in science, but not in the social sciences") is never a good solution, unless you also intend to create a separate Wikipedia:Disambiguation page where the other uses can be covered. Examples of "other uses" in this case are demonstrated in articles such as Models of scientific inquiry#Logical empiricism and Universal law of generalization). However, I agree with Exit2DOS2000: Afd is not the place to list and discuss an issue of this nature. Pia 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't delete any use of the term I wasn't familiar with. You're right, that wouldn't be a good solution. You're also right that AfD is probably not the best place to discuss this. I'll post the balance of my notes on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Bsherr 02:16, 3 November 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.