Deletion of Lyall Howard (2nd nomination)

Comment: for exactly the same reasons as I set out in the earlier discussion.  The article exists for one reason only; as a |POV fork of John Howard to allow discussion of LH's activities in PNG that were deemed not appropriate in the article on JH. As per the nominators rationale, other than the fact he is JH's father, LH is entirely non-notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: I don't really see any notability.  In reference to lester's statement, 1 is left up for debate (don't know if that's notable), I see no evidence of malice for 2 (and tend to |assume good faith nevertheless), 3 is sheer speculation and therefore unnotable, and 4, as per  (explained above is not notable.  5, quoth you, "may have" had effects on his son's upbringing - "may have" is, again, sheer speculation, and I'm not sure that, if conclusively the answer was yes, it would apply, in any event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:BIO)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: merely being related to the ex-PM does not make you notable.  From : "''That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I have the book.  John Howard is mentioned on page 772 in the context of Lyall and also alongside Walter and Lyall opening petrol station.  Lyall Howard is covered on pages 552-3, 691, 745, 747, 772.  Walter Howard is covered 553, 691, 692, 772.  The mention on page 745 is Private Lyall Howard, the pioneer, wasn't going to change his laconic prose style because something important had happened.  For November 11 he wrote two words in his diary: 'Armistice signed.' on page 747 Carlyon returns to Lyall Howard with Lyall Howard's reaction to the armistice is perhaps more typical than the others mentioned above.  Most frontline soldiers seemed to take the news quietly ...  In other words what Carlyon has done has used the diary of the father of the PM to offer a window into the ordinary front-line soldier.  Carlyion does not mention Lyall Howard extensively.  Carlyon is not asserting that Lyall Howard is notable - in fact almost the opposite.  Carlyon's choice of the diary of Lyall Howard as opposed to many other diaries available to him was probably based on Lyall's relationship to the then PM given the publication date of the book (2006).  Bill Gammage's book ''The Broken Years'' also looked at soldiers' diaries to gain an impression of WW1.  Lyall Howard is not one of those he chose.  Not sure of the significance of that : Lyall's diary may not have been available to Gammage at the time (early 1970s), he used the records of 272 Great War veterans and there are of course 330,770 AIF members who embarked.  The point I am trying to make is Lyall Howard is not independently notable - he is worthy but among other things  - ''Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.''  The question is, is Lyall Howard in the same category as Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander - who are covered by the policy of WP:Bio invalid criteria mentioned above.  They are both infants and of course have done nothing other than be somebody's child.  Lyall Howard is not quite the same and if I was going to draw a comparison - why do we have an article on Howard's wife but not his father - but then what about his mother, siblings ...  The suggestion of Howard family (Australia) by OiC might be a goer
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: I feel that  applies here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)