Talk:Miles Routledge

Article name

[edit]

I propose renaming this article 'Lord Miles' as this is how this individual is almost universally known in public sources. Lollapalooza4725 (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On social media he is often referred to as such, but Wikipedia does not primarily use social media as source material. Reliable sources like The Telegraph, NZ Herald, and BBC News primarily refer to him as Miles Routledge. Mounched (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Controversy section

[edit]

@Sunuraju: There are multiple problems with your addition of this section to the article–its title violates WP:CSECTION, you didn't explain your original edit or your reinsertion of the text after my revert, and it's not clear why a minor Twitter spat should be included in the article at all. Yes, it has two references, but both seem like churnalism designed to draw eyeballs by inflating the importance of the events they cover, making them not appropriate for inclusion. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 00:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevancy?

[edit]

Struggling to understand what is notable about this person vs any other of the myriad foriegn persons held captive by the Taliban at some point, or the sea of similar "internet celebrities" (whether incarcerated by political extremists or not) who do not merit their own wikipedia articles. Perhaps this page would more appropriately redirect to the Internet celebrity wiki article? As it stands, this is free advertising for a person with a vested interest in attracting attention without having to do anything of note 108.49.222.200 (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from previous discussions, he is on the borderline for notability. He has had coverage in Reliable Sources and that's probably enough to keep the article. I don't think the article is "free advertising" but if you have any specific objections to any parts then please say what they are.
One thing that jumps out at me is that his book is published by American Neo-Nazis but the article doesn't say anything about how that happened or about links to the far-right in general. I'm not sure what there is there but if we are missing something significant then it should be added. I see that some coverage of far-right connections was added in the past but removed for being improperly referenced. If any of that can be properly referenced then maybe that should be restored. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Water fast?

[edit]

I have removed coverage of the alleged "water fast" as it is not reliably referenced. I've had a quick look for any sources that meet WP:RS but I'm not finding any. In fact, I'm not finding much at all. If there are any valid sources for this then I don't have a problem with it going in the article (minus the unnecessary picture with the cat, obviously) but we can't source an argument on Polymarket to Polymarket itself (or to Tweets). --DanielRigal (talk)