Deletion of Miles Routledge

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IGNORE)

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 ; 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: Individuals role in current events is not substantial . Wikipedia is not a newspaper, otherwise many more people who have appeared in major media outlets would be added 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:NOTNP)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:NOTNP)

Comment: per {{U|Spirit of Eagle}} ''et al.'' If he was one of the three known fatalities, that might be notable, |but he's alive
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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 . I also have to call into serious question statements like {{tq|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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Only notable for one event.  requires substantial and significant coverage for an individual to overcome this. An article in ''The Times'' does not meet that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: as per  Wikipedia is not a place for promotional activity, which is the motivation behind this individual's actions. This article should be swiftly deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Significant coverage in The Times and The Telegraph is good enough for me. The question of whether he will continue to receive coverage is ; he is receiving coverage now, and if he does not receive  in the future, then the article can be renominated
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE)

Comment: 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 , 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 . 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:5P1)