Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treaty of Fontainebleau (1745)


 * 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. It appears that edits subsequent to the nomination have addressed the sourcing problems.  Sandstein  07:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Treaty of Fontainebleau (1745)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This treaty probably existed, but Google only finds 128 unique hits, of which a fair number are to the later 1814 treaty, some reference a date of 1743 instead of 1745, and none have the original source. It looks as if a couple of academic books might. Wikipedia is the leading reference to the existence and content of this treaty, which is never a good sign. The cited source is a Jacobite fansite, and the text of the opening sentence in either French or English is a Googlewhack. Either the guy who runs the website has performed a unique piece of scholarship and inexplicably failed to publish it in the peer-reviewed literature, or there's some error in copying from the original book source he cites (and that also implies that the translation is probably a copyvio). Oh, and this article was created by an abusive sockpuppeteer. Guy (help!) 11:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There are scholarly sources going back to the 1860s that discuss this treaty and some have now been added in. The text of the treaty has been reproduced in several places, unfortunately not that I can see online.  I can't tell whether it is a copyvio or not, but if it is one, it is on an external site and not on Wikipedia, and as it is a fairly short treaty and the the book referred to is lengthy, it may count as an extended quotation. Mccapra (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is now properly referenced Naturenet | Talk 21:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Even on the most trivial levels of analysis, this subject screams "Keep". "Only" finding 128 hits should have given the nom pause, really, as should the fact that "a couple of academic books" do actually cover the subject (which by itself is typically sufficient rationale to keep). The 1743 Fontainebleau treaty was a pact of alliance between France and Spain (see here) so there is not confusion with the 1745 treaty which was between the King of France and The Pretender. The full text of the treaty can be found on p.209 of The Jacobite Threat by Williams and Gibson - note that this was a 1990 book and as such not sourced from the website which the nom complains of. In terms of sigcov, the basic details of the treaty (date, signatories, major clauses and purpose), sufficient to write an article, can be found, for example, here: 1 2 3 4. That last reference is particularly relevant as it gives over an entire chapter (Chap. 23) to the treaty - and not for no reason as this was the treaty where James (the Old Pretender) abdicated his claim to the British throne in favour of his son (the Young Pretender). The description in Frank McLynn's 1759 of the treaty is also relevant as it points out that the treaty had long-term consequences for the Jacobites. FOARP (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep there may be few GHits, but that's not uncommon for old historical things (like treaties). The treaty is supposedly translated in Jacobite threat : England, Scotland, Ireland, France : a source book and has a fair bit of Gbook mentions, as discussed in more depth above. Eddie891 Talk Work'' 00:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- Jeremy Black is a leading historian of international relations in this period, so that questions of RS should evaporate. This is clearly closely related to the Jacobite rising of 1745.  It looks as if news of the Young Pretender's initial success in Scotland led to this treaty.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2020 (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.