Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Alan Spencer-Churchill

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Alan Spencer-Churchill

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

Thoroughly unremarkable footnote in Debretts. Strictly one for @aristocracy' fetishists. TheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Peerage doesn't connote notability. The subject doesn't pass WP:MILPEOPLE and I'm not convinced the spare routine coverage merits WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. None of the existing refs appear to provide significant coverage of him, nor do the above Google searches (although they did reveal that he once had his photograph taken while wearing a rather striking striped shirt). Qwfp (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; merely a footnote of a trivial nature. Kierzek (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how a third son has to find his own way in the world. This one married for love, so no money there and became an early capitalist in the tourism industry, though there was no such concept at the time. He was therefore more 'Upper Middle Class' than 'Aristocrat', all through an accident of birth order, so no discernible fetishism there. I agree the stripy shirt in Ireland is fun --Po Kadzieli (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC) He may only be a "footnote" in the categories you have put up so far, but he had an entrepreneurial focus that would have been despised by his family and he did not look to be slotted into a safe conservative seat. Do you not think it admirable that he did not apparently seek to be photographed by a society photographer? In my view he is notable if only for trying to earn his living. Have a look again, I've added pics. --Po Kadzieli (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ if only because I would not be caught dead in that shirt. More seriously, (and responding to Po), the images add nothing to show notability in the article. Not notable as an aristo. If his notability depends on his role as an entrepreneur, it is not shown in the article. I would change my contribution if the article were edited to show his notability in that regard, though. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my Delete vote based on the remarks below about his possible notability as a "different" 19th Century businessman. I don't know enough specifically about aristos not getting their hands dirty like tradesmen in the era, though, to convert my vote to a Keep. So, I still think it needs work to demonstrate notability. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lineagegeek makes a good point about the business angle. As a toff, I agree, Alan has not much to brag about, but getting into ships and Argentinian beef is kind of notable. There are loads of references to him in the press in relation to businesses contracts etc. Unfortunately, a lot of them are now tied up in subscriptions, so the only alternative is hours in libraries. I bet many of you will not hang about for that and that would be a shame for a chap cut off in his prime. --Po Kadzieli (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears notable as a 19th century British businessman and philanthropist. I suspect that better sources are available and article can be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep but I would like to know a good deal more of his business interests before being sure. If he was notable, it was probably for that. His title only indicates that his father was a duke. He was not himself a peer. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as businessman, and an unusual one for the time, with his background. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG 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. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi! Another source of notability is that after Alan died, his widow married a Mr. Caulfield, but she kept the name, 'Lady Alan Spencer-Churchill'. In fact, her own death in 1888 was announced in that name. So that speaks for itself, no? --Po Kadzieli (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. We have notability criteria. Please read them. What you're talking about isn't listed and therefore we don't consider the subject notable. This is not a subjective thing. We're assessing if the subject meets out objective criteria. If you're going to be a partisan about this you're going to have a bad time. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris. I have read the criteria. I am not sure who the 'we' are to whom you refer. As for the threat of 'a bad time' comes across as very unpleasant indeed in the context of a soit disant cultural organisation. If that is the case, I'm out of here. --Po Kadzieli (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Po Kadzieli: I'm sorry I was unclear; there was no threat. "We" refers to us Wikipedians, the aggregate that shows up to discuss. The assessment is what we, collectively, are doing by !voting. Wikipedia becomes a difficult place when we can't cooperate and cooperation becomes impossible when we either don't agree to the same rules or try to reinterpret what prior consensus has already agreed upon. Wikipedia is easy and enjoyable when we make our determinations dispassionately based on objective criteria. Whenever editors veer from that norm we get into all kinds of hurtful arguments and everyone loses. You seem to be imagining the word "notability" to mean whatever you want that to mean. My warning is that this approach is going to take you against the grain and you might think we're out to get you or that we don't value you as an editor. Please return to our objective criteria and forget any perceived ownership or investment in the article. None of this discussion is personal in nature or driven by grudges or politics. If you start to make these mental gymnastics to push to keep the article you'll find yourself sore as a result. I hope that makes sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not notable as a military person, passes WP:GNG as an early businessman. I hope that more information can be added, as what is there is quite interesting. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that this person seems to meet gng. WP:MILPEOPLE (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. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:34, 8 November 2016 (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.