Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard Casley

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 keep. Tone 21:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Casley[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merged into Principality of Hutt River; he is not otherwise notable. Errantius (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (disclaimer: I am the page creator). it passes WP:ANYBIO. However, it can be merged/redirected to the Principality of Hutt River since the subject has received significant media coverage in RS. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per the nomination. WWGB (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. Obituary in a major national newspaper = notability. This is a longstanding convention. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 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]

Keep per Frickeg, Necrothesp and Nick-D. Deus et lex (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's independently notable based upon the obituaries in major newspapers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:45, 25 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.