Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baillie Thomas Arbuthnot
Does not appear to meet , and of the three listed sources, one (Mrs Arbuthnot's "memories") is not independent, and the reference to the National Library is a primary source, rather than the required ''secondary'' source per  and OR.  There ''may'' be adequate secondary sources to write a valid article, which is why I say a "weak" delete; but the uncertainty about their availability in relation to a relatively minor 18th century figure leads me to conclude that it is better to delete than to keep the article in the hope that someone may find them and rewrite the article. If the article is deleted, then a new one can of course be written if and when someone has the necessary sources
— User:BrownHairedGirl, 16:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:BIO||WP:N||WP:NOR (Wikipedia:Notability)