Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 2

Miles Routledge – allow re-creation of the artcle JBW (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

the deletion hinged on him not being notable at all beyond the one event, which seems to definitely be no longer true. He build up a decent following, went into other conflict zones (https://www.indy100.com/news/miles-routledge-ukraine-kyiv-afghanistan https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11735337/Holiday-snaps-British-backpacker-went-Ukraine-airlifted-Taliban-invasion.html) and most importantly went back to Afghanistan and has now been detained by the Taliban along with other British people in the country. (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65118681 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65156379 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHLKA0VssdM https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/04/01/british-tourist-lord-miles-routledge-captured-taliban-kabul/). This is all obviously very dumb, but considering how close the deletion discussion was I think this warrants a review of whether BLP1E still applies. jonas (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hell's teeth! You would think he would have learned his lesson by now. Anyway, I don't have access to the deleted article so I can't say whether it would be worth bringing it back or whether it might be better to start just from scratch. Either way, he probably is notable now. So, as somebody who !voted "weak delete" on the AfD, I have no objection to it being undeleted. DanielRigal (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin comment: Since this was deleted on the basis of WP:BLP1E, and he doesn't seem to be a 1E anymore, I don't see a problem with restoring this. However, I do have a question for User:Jonas1015119. Are you seeking undeletion of the previously deleted article, or to create a new one (perhaps from the draft at Draft:Miles Routledge)? --RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with either, though considering the current submissions queue and the fact that hes in the news now, a recreation would probably more helpful, the current draft seems to be decent. I'm not sure which would be more appropriate in cases like these. --jonas (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the previous content isn't being restored, you probably didn't need a DRV, but since we are here, I'm fine with formally saying allow re-creation, just to head off an inappropriate G4 speedy deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close if this is an appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Re-Creation, either by submitting draft or by creating article at risk of AFD. Title is not salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the circumstances we should clearly have an article about Mr Routledge.—S Marshall T/C 07:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.