Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miles Routledge

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 per WP:BLP1E. The overall discussion was closely divided, but as is often the case with many BLP1E discussions, many of the arguments did not address the key points. This includes some "delete" arguments that attacked the subject personally, and "keep" arguments that focused on the overall amount of coverage without touching the specific issues of BLP1E. Regarding the three criteria of that policy, the first (coverage for one incident) seems undisputed. The second was discussed in one "keep" argument that asserted he is not "low profile" because he posted information online and accepted media interviews. However, the criterion says "otherwise remains", which I take to mean otherwise beyond the one incident, and there was no argument that he has any media profile beyond this one incident. On the final criterion, it was established in the discussion that the larger event is significant and his role seems well documented, but it does not seem "substantial" as he was only one of many people seeking exit. Therefore the subject appears to meet all the necessary criteria of WP:BLP1E. RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Routledge[edit]

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

Miles Routledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an obvious BLP violation. Miles Routledge is only potentially notable for one event. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: subject does not meet the requirements for relevance on Wikipedia. Dellwood546 (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: See my below post. I've changed my vote.
  • Draftify:* Sources are not currently adequate enough to meet WP:BIO. Subject is only notable for one event and that one event is still transpiring. This is an example of WP:BLP1E, and while I don't foresee additional sources changing that fact, we'll need to wait for more sources and evaluate the article at that point. Otherwise we are crystal balling. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*No longer think the articles need to be moved to draftspace. It no longer meets criteria #3 of WP:NOTBLP1E. See my additional comments below. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:BLP1ENOT, BLP1E does not just say BLPs notable for one event get deleted. This just isn't the case: it would be absurd to nominate D.B. Cooper or Trayvon Martin for deletion because they were "only notable for one event". There are multiple criteria that must be met. One of them is that the individual is "low-profile". WP:LOWPROFILE gives five ways to assess this: media attention, promotional activities, appearances and performances, eminence, and behavior pattern/activity level. Specifically, he created more than one thread on 4chan about his travels that featured his photo and real name, and eagerly gave multiple interviews to a variety of news outlets. Per WP:LOWPROFILE, persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Regarding sourcing: there are plenty of RS right now, and he's in the middle of getting on a plane; either he makes it out, and does a ton of interviews with every newspaper in the world, or he doesn't, and there are a ton of articles about that. I think that seven days is long enough to find out (and if not, I will draftify it myself). jp×g 22:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since it seems like a large number of people are going to read this AfD, and possibly use it to inform their opinions of what Wikipedia editors are like, I'll clarify that I do hope he makes it out, and that later expansion of the article will continue the biography of a living person. jp×g 08:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only notable for one event. WP:BLP1E requires substantial and significant coverage for an individual to overcome this. An article in The Times does not meet that. Solipsism 101 (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I second JPxG, also the article has been expanded a fair bit since the first comments were left here, and it should be pretty clear within the next 7 days whether this should be kept or not. Theres definitely enough media coverage now to justify Notability. jonas (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's one, maybe two reliable sources significantly covering Routledge. That is not enough media coverage to justify notability. It's probably not even enough coverage to consider this a WP:BLP1E. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I second JPxG. He is a well known public figure with 10s of millions of views about his struggle. He is a important cornerstone of this event. This event is big enough, and he is well known enough now, that it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.110.43.121 (talk • contribs) — 116.110.43.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep: Many articles across multiple languages in the mainstream press regarding him right now and the situation is still developing. I second JPxG regarding the issue of BLP1E. It's very unlikely he'll drop off the face of the earth after this is over, whatever the outcome. 0x004d (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is quite possible that he will be forgotten when this has ended. Wikipedia is not a repository of things that might become notable in the future. Instead, it is a repository of things that are notable now. On a different note, I have noticed that many of the keep voters mention coverage, but none of them have actually linked any reliable sources here. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Concur with other editors, specifically JPxG's point. There are many people notable for just one thing. Miles is still notable and has received widespread media attention. At the very least we will know soon whether he is notable or not. InspectorRage (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC) — InspectorRage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and has been receiving wide media attention. Yes the subject may be only notable based on one event WP:BLP1E. But I still feel the subject would get more pressure coverage in coming days due to the subject's involvement with Fall of Kabul (2021). Abishe (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am noticing that many of the keep votes are justifying their positions using a crystal ball. This discussion is about whether reliable sources exist now, rather than at some nebulous point in the future. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Routledge is not sufficiently notable. NotGordon (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This figure is most certainly not an "a important cornerstone of this event". Does getting an article in LadBible, The Sun, The Daily Express (all complete rags) & a few regional newspapers etc. really warrant a Wikipedia page? Unless he ends up getting killed as a result of his antics I highly doubt this person will be getting mentioned in the media come next week. ToeSchmoker (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should add that The Telegraph[1] and The Times[2] have covered this story. Most of the story has been directed by tabloid non-RSs, but the two papers of record in the UK have covered it. This doesn't change my vote as it's still not substantial or significant coverage. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only notable for one event. If this leads him to go on to become a more significant person (like a reporter or journalist) this article would work, but as of now it doesn't make sense to keep his page up. Fernsong (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lots of new accounts here, possibly being directed here by social media websites? Dark-World25 (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlikely to be a brigade, only one edit is from an IP and the deletion discussion page is advertised at the top of his article which is one of the first search engine results when looking him up. 0x004d (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although he is not notable as part of the event itself and so cannot be included in 2021 Taliban offensive, this person played a significant part in documenting an extremely notable event in a unique way which is in and of itself notable, as indicated by the wide range of articles that have been written on him. This should be an exception to the rule, see WP:IGNORE FAISSALOO(talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in The Times and The Telegraph is good enough for me. The question of whether he will continue to receive coverage is WP:CRYSTALBALL; he is receiving coverage now, and if he does not receive WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in the future, then the article can be renominated. Mlb96 (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even if this article were to be kept, there are a number of issues with the page that need to be addressed. First, the use of quotes around "wasteland" does not seem to refer to an article (if it does that needs to be referenced), and otherwise seems to express sarcasm and therefore an opinion of the writer. Second, although the subject may have purchased a "lordship certificate", I can't find references to suggest that the alternative name "Lord Miles" is in common use. Tojam2 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Faissaloo Qaei ☎ 23:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Its a good primary source for the future. It has the same verisimilitude as a newspaper article on a soldier at the end of WW2, just in the modern era of the internet. Still, it *does* need more work on its verifiability - a few YouTube videos and a Sun article aren’t enough evidence for importance. But it *does* have promise. — 2a02:c7f:146d:7700:a853:22df:1468:3cf4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: Glorifying an incredibly stupid person isn't a good thing to be doing.Echopraxia9000 (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Further news coverage by major media outlets (including in several languages) has now came up and I believe that the article now meets the requirements for relevance. I've amended my prior opinion above. Dellwood546 (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This man means adventure and will go on an another stupid trip after he gets rescued (he's in transit as I write this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankUnderw000d (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I've been on a trip of my own the last couple days, so haven't been able to edit at full throttle until now. I've added another ten sources, as well as done a lot of expansion and copyediting. I wouldn't say the article is "done" at this point, but it is certainly stronger than it was before (and has much better sourcing; I think the Daily Dot, Telegraph, Input, The Tab, the Times, and Vice are relatively solid). I will be back in a few hours for more -- stay tuned. jp×g 09:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Apart from Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I am worried that this could be a hoax. Either way, if, something more substantial than 'student gets stuck in a warzone' then the article can be recreated. EhsanQ (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only notable for one event. LieselD (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: This could be potentially important information about the events going on in Kabul, but I don't think he is a figure with a large enough following or reputation yet to warrant his own page (maybe in future though?). That being said, information about his reporting from Kabul may be important to know, and people may come to the site wanting to find out about him, so I'd suggest having a section about him, or that at the very least references him, on the 2021 Fall of Kabul page. SpamPorpoise (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He is now safe in Dubai. Any media coverage, in RSs at least, will end here. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: much less significant articles than this on Wikipedia; some of the arguments are ridiculous - as if this Wikipedia article is somehow the tipping point between some other fool doing something similar and not. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We are all aware that other stuff exists. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 17:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently not, otherwise people would not always be so selectively outraged at fluff articles. Sumbuddi (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNP the individual is not notable in any way and this article should be deleted swiftly. Astuishin (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNP for swift deletion. Insufficiently notable, promotional, possibly self created. Anvib (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anvib: While he is certainly self-promotional, I think it's unlikely that Miles would prepare to write an article about himself by spending seven years editing Wikipedia pretending to be an engineer from the United States. That said, I'd be happy to email you a photo of myself pointing to this AfD on my monitor and making a silly face of your choosing, putting keyboard/shoe on head, et cetera. jp×g 22:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article was not self-created; JPxG is a well known and experienced Wikipedia editor. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individuals role in current events is not substantial WP:1E. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, otherwise many more people who have appeared in major media outlets would be added WP:NOTNP. Humongous125 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I understand the viewpoints of those supporting deletion, but I feel the references as they stand now are enough to warrant keeping the article and any issues could theoretically be improved upon with time. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more appropriately covered by a newspaper, not by wikipedia Thecitizen1 (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Per ToeSchmoker. I was in disbelief to discover this page. The comparisons with Trayvon Martin and D B Cooper are weak. This is clearly a brat whose actions in the middle of a real crisis have generated enough inconvenience and shock value to land him in newspapers. He will justifiably be forgotten by the end of the week, and if he isn't, we can have another conversation about whether he's notable enough for an article. I am properly indignant that he's being considered a cornerstone of this crisis and repulsed that we are contributing to it. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand the point you are making; whether the guy is a dick is not a relevant consideration for notability (and even if it were, it's hard to see how he is more of a dick than a guy who brought a bomb on an airplane and threatened to murder everyone with it unless he was given $200,000). D.B. Cooper doesn't have an article because we think he's a great guy, he has an article because he's received substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. jp×g 20:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without meaning any disrespect, I find it difficult to explain the obvious with reference to granular policy. I cannot see how you analogise Trayvon Martin (whose killing sparked a movement) and D B Cooper (whose hijacking has captured the imagination for decades) with a kid who happened to be at a war zone in the middle of the war. He is the among the least important things in this conflict. I could do the “Wikipedia is not a crystal ball” or “Wikipedia is not a newspaper” thing, or get into the weeds on the notability guideline, but I see this as one of those clear, in-your-face examples where the subject obviously is not notable in any reasonable sense. Many of the other “delete” comments here are clearly inspired by the same sentiment. And apologies if I confused you by calling him a “brat”; that wasn’t the point, it just made me feel better. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Routledge has been covered by multiple major publications as part of a significant event, which is good enough for WP:BLP1E. Whether Routledge's actions are foolish or immoral is irrelevant; many foolish and immoral people have Wikipedia pages. Shannon Alther (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shannon Alther: Being mentioned in major publications as part of a significant event is not a reason for someone to have a Wikipedia page. Anvib (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think JPxG has made the case for notability; I just wanted to add that the article doesn't merit deletion on BLP-related procedural grounds.Shannon Alther (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: After careful consideration, I'm going to lean on the keep side. The subject's coverage of the siege on Kabul and his escape are sufficiently distinct for me to say it passes WP:1E. The sticking point for me was on "There is usually no need to write articles about things with no historical significance whatsoever." The siege on Kabul was historically significant, and in my opinion the subject's coverage of the events that transpired, as well as his wider media coverage, make him sufficiently notable to have an article. Tojam2 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The siege on Kabul was historically significant, but I fail to see how a college student going there while it happened and sharing a couple social media posts is. It's not like he's a journalist. He provides little to no insight to the historical event. I would say he has no relevance to the event. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG presumes notability in the presence of WP:SIGCOV. While there may be a cogent argument to be made in favor of adopting different notability guidelines, it's not really clear to me what an objective measure of "significance" would look like for biographies. As an example, Elián González is a BLP notable in conjunction with only one event (the controversy over whether he would be allowed to immigrate from Cuba to the United States). He is not even mentioned in Cuba–United States relations; in our article on the specific US policy regarding situations like his, he is given only a passing mention as an example of someone to whom it applied. I would say he is notable regardless, since his ordeal was given lots of significant coverage by reliable sources, and consensus is broadly on the side of SIGCOV establishing notability -- determining whether or not someone is "historically relevant" seems like a quite subjective process that's outside our remit as encyclopedia editors (and doing so could potentially be a form of original research).
    I guess what I'm trying to say here is that, if our policies presume notability when a subject is given significant coverage by well-regarded reliable sources, like the BBC (RSP entry), Telegraph (RSP entry), and Times (RSP entry), and in the last few days these sources have all decided the guy was worth writing about, it's not clear to me what basis there is for claiming otherwise. jp×g 23:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: WP:GNG: ---No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.--- Anvib (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of reputable media sources here; is there an issue with the reliability of the three I posted in the comment above? jp×g 00:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Did you read above? As per above, sources alone (reliable or not) are not enough, “No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists”. As per above the evidence must show that “this was not a mere short-term interest”. This is evidently a short term interest. This is an individual has appeared in the news for a single incident, at most it merits mention as part of another wikipedia article. He does not merit his own wikipedia article as per BLP. And there are clear concerns about self-promotion as per above. Neither points you have addressed. Anvib (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say the topic was notable "because it exists"; I am saying it has a presumption of notability because "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is a direct quote of the first sentence of WP:GNG. jp×g 19:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good points by JPxG. I think he is now notable by Wikipedia's standards. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as per WP:GNG Wikipedia is not a place for promotional activity, which is the motivation behind this individual's actions. This article should be swiftly deleted.Anvib (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article has historical relevance to the siege. At best it should be kept, at worst it should be merged. HungryDinosaur (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify This is a fast-moving story and there is every chance that this thread will be picked up and the subject achieve notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Due to him having no significant participation in current events, I would suggest at most that his name be merged with another article. An example is given in WP:1E; where George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. Miles appears to be a witness who is no different to any other foreign national who was in Afghanistan at the time, only he got noticed by MSM by contacting them.
If his role was significant, would his name not appear in other wiki articles regarding the event, with some links directing to his page?
If his page is kept, does this set a precedence for creating articles about soldiers, aid workers, etc who have had a more significant role in Afghanistan and also appeared in reputable MSM sources?Humongous125 (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that deleting and merging this or mentioning this individual in another article would be more appropriate than this article and would be a fair compromise.Anvib (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an article about someone who has multiple stories focusing on them in reliable sources is not "creating a precedent", so much as it's "the general notability guidelines that have existed for many years". If I saw an article about an aid worker or translator who was the primary subject of a dozen news stories, I certainly would not nominate it for deletion, and if I saw it at AfD I would !vote "keep"; I'm not sure what stops you from doing this. jp×g 19:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG:Then why is George Holliday given as an example in WP:1E as someone who’s actions were only significant enough to warrant his name being merged with Rodney King? There is quite a few reputable sources such as the NY Times with articles about him. I also ask again, what is different about Miles that differentiates him from the experiences of any other foreign national stuck in the country? Or is the fact that the MSM has selected him as their poster boy to personify foreign nationals trying to leave the country sufficient for a Wikipedia page about him? Humongous125 (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Not un precedented, but well documented by reliable sources who chosed to mention him. He's clearly past the point of 4chan or Reddit Hero of the Day. We should wait some time before considering deletion, and treat this article as an internet phenomenon more than a biography. Larrayal (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia has a huge global responsibility and we should be mindful of endorsing people who may commit stupid and dangerous acts merely to "get a wikipedia page" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbHcS3I0sko Anvib (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I don't think an impromptu commentary video by a random YouTube user with no direct connection to the subject is in any way relevant to the discussion, and including a quote that I'm not sure even comes up in it but could easily be understood to be from Routledge himself (if one hasn't actually watched it) is suboptimal. AngryHarpy‍talk 17:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – oh boy, it's another one of those, huh? I've been passively following this discussion, and a lot of the more recent support for deletion features an increasingly undeniable tinge of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I also have to call into serious question statements like sources alone (reliable or not) are not enough, “No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists“ – sorry to say, but no, the second half doesn't really have much to do with the first one at all, and reliable sources alone indeed are enough. Mainly per JPxG's eloquent words above, I find myself in favor of inclusion by this point. AngryHarpy‍talk 17:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Like, omg, this guy's a racist and obvious right-wing shill! He goes on 4Chan and looks smarmy. Delete it now and rid Wikipedia of this Nazi. Even his name "Miles" oozes prejudice! Reeeeeee 2A02:C7F:CA07:8D00:B9E1:DB0E:A243:2A8E (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Er... What? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article, as it stands, is all about one event. There is RS coverage of that one event but nothing broad enough to source a BLP. We don't want BLPs of the type "That guy who made a fool of himself one time when he was young". Unless his other activities establish a broader pattern of notability, I think it is best, both for us and for him, not to have a BLP about him. That said, unless he changes his name, his Google searches are probably wrecked for life whether we have an article about him or not. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I've tagged the article as an orphan. There was one incoming link but it was this which I had already reverted as unreliably referenced and hence non-notable. I guess I should mention it here lest anybody think that I am trying to be sneaky by deleting the only incoming link and then tagging as orphaned. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a prime example of BLP1E. There's absolutely nothing which indicates that this person has any form of previous significance (i.e. notability is not temporary, and the current events are not sufficient to convince me this is more than just the usual RECENTISM of things that are in the news; given the role of this person in this one event is not significant (the examples of people that are notable for only one event and get an exception are those like Derek Chauvin (significant role in a notable event), which is clearly not the case here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the fall of Kabul is a highly notable event, Routledge played no role in it beyond getting trapped in the city (a trait shared by thousands of foreigners and millions of Afghans). Based on WP:BLP1E, this is simply not enough to get an article. In terms of general notability, Routledge received only a few days of coverage most of which has now concluded. (I did find a Russia Time's article published today, but this is not a reliable source). Thus, I think this article fails WP:NOTNEWS. Finally, Routledge is a young university student. If we keep this article, then over the next few decades we would have to keep track of someone who will almost certainly be a private individual who does nothing further of encyclopedic note. This poses major privacy concerns and runs afoul of WP:5P1. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Spirit of Eagle et al. If he was one of the three known fatalities, that might be notable, but he's alive. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 23 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miles_Routledge&oldid=1147863997"