Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Spoor Broome

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 no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) @ 14:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Spoor Broome[edit]

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

article does not address anything that specifically makes him notable-like his father, it's mostly cullings from genealogy and obits Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – However, I think he's notable mainly for the gift related to the John Spoor Broome Library. This is a terrific building, by Norman Foster. The library article links to him and people will want to know who he was. I would stub the rest of the article. Namely, he was a rich man who inherited a very large ranch from his father, sold it, and gave away a lot of money, notably for the library. (We also have a long article on the ranch, which mentions him.) – Margin1522 (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 03:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 22 December 2014 (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.