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. Sandstein 13:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Broomfield[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

non-notable person who had the misfortune of being killed by ISIS. Wasn't notable before his death and aside from some sensational stories, there isn't anything in the way of in depth coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 01:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to meet GNG. This person has a few reliable, national levela source. Like the LA Times, NBC, and Newsweek. However, I usually air on the side of keep. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think a web search shows he measures up to GNG Geo Swan (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course major publications are going to write about an american being killed by ISIS but it still doesn't make them notable. CUPIDICAE💕 14:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. After a short blip of media coverage after his death, there has been nothing. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said before, he wasn't notable before his death. AliochaKara (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes GNG. See sources here.[1] Prax's comment that "of course major publications are going to write about" .. does not conflict w my view that he meets GNG. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. The weight in the coverage is on the fact that an american volunteer was killed, but the deceased subject himself doesn't inherit notability from this brief fact. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain? Are you saying that he has GNG coverage, but you view coverage of him being killed as not falling within GNG, because in your view that is "inheriting notability"? 2603:7000:2143:8500:90B2:2512:1834:A779 (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This looks like a case of WP:BIO1E. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 07:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not seeing evidence that establishes sufficient notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 21 February 2021 (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.