Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baillie Thomas Arbuthnot

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baillie Thomas Arbuthnot[edit]

I don't think there is anything notable here. Perhaps it can be expanded but being the factor of a Scottish estate and advocating a cause is not that spectacular. Giano 07:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable.--padraig3uk 08:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing notable to see here. --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no assertion of notability and fails WP:BIO Thunderwing 11:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A quartermaster, it seems, who reproduced. That's all we learn. That surely isn't all there is, but what there might be does not seem to pass the bar. Geogre 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having written some Jacobite biographies - I was quite excited by this - and the possibilities for expansion. Unfortunately, we have zero sources - so until we do, I suggest we delete.-Doc^g 13:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until we have some sources showing that he actually did anything of note (he might be notable for "rallying" forces for James VIII, whatever that means - he was 34 in 1715: did he lead the group that he "rallied" in combat, for example? I suspect he unable to do much of interest by 1745.) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless references can be added showing satisfaction of WP:BIO. Edison 15:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---Cathal 16:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 19:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When considered among the group of Arbuthnots who were recently scrutinized in other AfDs he's clearly not notable. EdJohnston 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He probably is. The local gentry participating in the 45 were as notable as any later revolutionary leaders--being around to do it both in 15 and 45 was quite exceptional. Baille is mayor, and Peterborough was a small city (large town by modern standards, but this was the 18th century. The Lord Marischal before he lost his title had one of the largest estates in Scotland--factor to him was a position of political and economic influence. it's just that this article doesn't show the notability, because the author was much more interested in getting in the maximum number of relatives from the sources immediately at hand, than in actually doing any research or any thoughtful writing. If his family has figures worth entering, they're worth doing well, and better to do one good one a month than one like this a day. Of course, doing figures like this properly takes going to actual libraries, and in the UK. We can't correct all of this work in 4 or 5 days--perhaps we should hold off for a wikiproject. DGG 05:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure from where you have derived this information the subject was neither gentry not a mayor and Peterborough? Is nowhere near Scotland. Giano 06:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we can get sources, I'd write the article myself. But as it stands we have none.--Doc^g 07:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there I was assuming that Baillie was his first name! He was a minor municipal official (Baillie, equivalent to alderman or magistrate) of Peterhead (not Peterborough). As for being a factor - the notable person is the organ grinder, not the monkey. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RFerreira 05:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KrakatoaKatie 09:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - Some reputable citations, more would be needed with article expansion to really make a case for more notability. Smee 09:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, 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 WP:N and WP:NOR. 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 19 May 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.