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.
Keep. As noted above, he certainly does pass
WP:ANYBIO and also sails over
WP:GNG, hence a stand-alone article is warranted. (It would not be, if it needs saying, for anyone else in the "royal" family.) I mean, he has a UK Times obituary - that's not something you see for non-notable Australians.
Frickeg (
talk)
06:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep For some reason the Australian media has long been fascinated by this guy and his fellow cranks in the self-declared Principality of Hutt River, so
WP:BIO is easily met.
Nick-D (
talk)
08:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment in response. To those who are favouring Keep: What need can there be for a personal article on somebody whose sole notability is for a single activity that already has its own article, to which searches (I expect) are most likely to be going and to which his name would be redirected? Having an obituary in a major newspaper is a fine thing: like the obituary, a personal article would normally contain information on life and work that would not be found elsewhere. In this case, however, there seems no reason for
Leonard Casley to contain anything that is not or could not be in
Principality of Hutt River. The personal article seems to be needless duplication.
Errantius (
talk)
12:31, 20 August 2020 (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.
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.
Keep. As noted above, he certainly does pass
WP:ANYBIO and also sails over
WP:GNG, hence a stand-alone article is warranted. (It would not be, if it needs saying, for anyone else in the "royal" family.) I mean, he has a UK Times obituary - that's not something you see for non-notable Australians.
Frickeg (
talk)
06:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep For some reason the Australian media has long been fascinated by this guy and his fellow cranks in the self-declared Principality of Hutt River, so
WP:BIO is easily met.
Nick-D (
talk)
08:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment in response. To those who are favouring Keep: What need can there be for a personal article on somebody whose sole notability is for a single activity that already has its own article, to which searches (I expect) are most likely to be going and to which his name would be redirected? Having an obituary in a major newspaper is a fine thing: like the obituary, a personal article would normally contain information on life and work that would not be found elsewhere. In this case, however, there seems no reason for
Leonard Casley to contain anything that is not or could not be in
Principality of Hutt River. The personal article seems to be needless duplication.
Errantius (
talk)
12:31, 20 August 2020 (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.