Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimatum


 * 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  The EB precedent seems conclusive. Warden (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ultimatum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I wrote much of the current text in 2006, but under our current standards it's a no-go: it's unsourced except for a 1911 EB link, and it's pretty much only a WP:DICDEF.  Sandstein  21:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll have to oppose this as the word "ultimatum" must be a plausible redirect to something. That said, I think that this expression may have a technical meaning in diplomacy and international law ("a final demand as an alternative to war"). That is the sort of thing that I found when I typed "an ultimatum is" and "an ultimatum means" into Google Books. See, for example, Grimal, Threats of Force: International Law and Strategy, Routledge, 2012, p 103, who offers two technical definitions given by other authors and specifically applies it to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. James500 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Having looked further, I think that it is very clear that "ultimatum" (aka "ultimata") is a highly notable technical term of art in international law. See, for example:
 * Hill, Norman. "Was There an Ultimatum Before Pearl Harbour?". The American Journal of International Law. Vol 42. No 2. Apr 1948. p 335 et seq. JSTOR;
 * Lauren, Paul Gorden. "Ultimata and Coercive Diplomacy". International Studies Quarterly. Vol 16. No 2. Jun 1972. p 131 et seq. JSTOR;
 * Strong keep and expand.James500 (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The entry in the Eleventh Edition of Encylopedia Britannica contains a great deal more than a dictionary definition. James500 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Participants in this AfD may like to note that the nominator removed much of the article during the week or so before he nominated it. This is the article just before he started doing so. Not that much better, but not quite so much of a DICDEF. Of course, the real question in an AfD like this is not so much whether an article is currently a DICDEF or not notable for some other reason, but whether it can be improved to avoid these problems. My feeling is that it can be, but I must admit that corresponding articles on other Wikipedia are a long way from showing this. PWilkinson (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, can easily be expanded upon with reliable secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. In particular, diplomatic usage with regard to unfriendly acts etc. is a notable topic. The article should probaly also link to Coercive diplomacy but the topic seems to be notable in its own right. --Boson (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete this page and the ersion of it pointed out above are purely WP:DICDEF, don't see how any editing of it can be anything but a definition of the word. J04n(talk page) 18:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  02:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure if we have a policy stating this exactly, but any topic that has an article in Encyclopedia Britannica should be considered notable. Ryan Vesey 02:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles in standard encyclopedias asre excellent tertiary sources, and that they cover a topic in a separate article is a proof of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep it's a notable concept, and there are sources in every book on diplomacy, not to mention anything covering the history of the 20th century. Several editors have been adding them since the AfD started, and anyone who has voted delete previously should take a look at them. The real problem here is that the use of the old EB as the primary source for a article should no longer be tolerated. I think those here when the decision was made to rely on it made the wrong decision, and what we need to do is rewrite every such article. (That said, the material in here from the EB wasn't actually all that bad as a preliminary outline, but article should never be left at that point --and, by current rules on plagiarism, the exact material from the EB needs to be indicated--a general statement that some or all of the article is \vcopied from it or based on it is not sufficient--just as it would not be sufficient for any other source. )  DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 1 April 2013 (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.