Jump to content

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]
*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]
@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]
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]
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]
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"