Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognac Gautier

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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cognac Gautier

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

I would have put a CSD notice in a second on this article, but anything that has to do with Louis XV might justify giving this article a fair discussion. Rainbow Dash 11:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The writing style of the article verges on the obscene but there seem to be some passable sources, eg [1] – ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 12:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep was going to claim it appears notable per independent coverage, but one of the links was a blacklisted site, and whether the other meets WP:RS is debatable. GBooks result given above is enough for a weak keep Jebus989^✰ 18:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google books has several references, such as [2], [3], [4], [5]. [6] look WP:RS enough to me (it says it's got a medal in 1867). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 03:07, 5 May 2011 (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.