Deletion of Lord Alan Spencer-Churchill

Comment: I agree that this person seems to meet gng.  (which is an essay not a guideline) writes, "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand alone article." I agree that this is not a very high bar and it can be argued that routine coverage can provide these details. However, I think this quote is supported by gng, Significant coverage is coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". Significant does not, here, mean that the coverage should be a long article. So in an article like this one which is arguably a collection of short mentions about a subject from a variety of sources, I think the important question is, "Is it original research to connect these sources to the subject of the article?" In a biography, this often depends on the subjects identity being clear in each source. In an instance like this, the subject has a fairly unique name (Alan Spencer-Churchill), a frequently used title (lord, military officer), known occupations (soldier, merchant, investor), and a life story with enough detail that each source clearly fits with the others to describe the same individual. Thus, I do believe that connecting the sources is not original research and the subject meets gng
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MILPEOPLE)

Comment: passes  as an early capitalist: that would not make him notable now, but in the 19th C. it is a break from commonality. Also suggest the intimation by the filer that all keep-!voters are 'fetishists' verges on a |personal attack and the |uncivil
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPA||WP:UNCIVIL)