Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyall Howard (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. Some points: (1) the POV fork argument is flawed: if this article was created to talk about Lyall Howard's activities, that seems entirely appropriate, and any POV issues can be corrected through editing. (2) Notability is not inherited, but this only rebuts a small part of what those arguing to keep are saying. Being related to someone famous doesn't make you automatically non-notable either. (3) No substantial argument weighs against DGG's comment. (4) It seems there is some feeling that the rewrite has made the article better. Mangojuicetalk 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyall Howard

edit
AfDs for this article:
Lyall Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Howard's father does not meet notability criteria and I think that will be even more obvious now than at the time of the previous debate which ended as the nomination being withdrawn - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyall Howard - ie the debate was not concluded.
Per Wikipedia:Bio#Invalid_criteria : That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A.
Although the article is referenced and interesting, there is still no independent notability conferred on the subject in my view. If he wasn't John Howard's father he would not have had an article. The lead currently reads Lyall Falconer Howard (1896-1955) was a World War I veteran, engineer and business owner and the father of former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard - if you struck out the last bit - would we have an article on somebody who was a World War I veteran, engineer and business owner? I don't think so. Matilda talk 04:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note change to weak keep on the basis there are multiple independent reliable sources and Lyall Howard is of comparable notability to relatives of other leaders, if not more so.--Matilda talk 02:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Lyall Howard was notable for 5 reasons: (1.) The incredible father and son meeting on the battlefield of World War I, as reported in newspapers. (2.) During the 1930s, Lyall Howard was named in the Parliament of Australia over his involvement in the Copra industry in New Guinea (a well referenced fact that some editors don't want known and many have deleted, and may be have been deleted at this present time). (3.) Speculation he was involved in the New Guard, a paramilitary organisation promoting allegiance to the British Empire. (4.) He was the father of Australian Prime Minister John Howard. (5.) The effects all of these events may have had on Prime Minister John Howard's upbringing and formative years. I could think of many other Wikipedia articles that are less notable than this one. --Lester 04:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment in response to the points raised by User:Lester:
  1. The incredible father and son meeting on the battlefield of World War I, as reported in newspapers was only reported in the newspapers in the context of John Howard - it would not have been reported on without that context. I think the newspaper headlines exaggerate the 1 in a million chance, relatives met often during the war. It is a good story and there are many good stories about many ordinary Australians - Lyall Howard and his father were just that - good ordinary Australians. Wikipedia is not a memorial and we do not have encyclopaedia articles on many other interesting and worthy but otherwise not notable people.
  2. being mentioned in Parliament is not grounds for notability. While I do not necessarily feel as strongly as Mattinbgn that this makes the article a POV fork, I do not believe this incident is sufficiently notable. If it is then an article about the event rather than the individual might be in order per WP:ONEEVENT. I doubt whether such an article would survive a debate on notability though, and if it would not, why should this article exist to record the factoid?
  3. Many people were involved with the New Guard - it is mere speculation and he held no notable position within that organisation - his links, even if proven, do not confer notability
  4. and also point 5 - being the father of the PM does not confer notability per my nominating rationale: see Wikipedia:Bio#Invalid_criteria
--Matilda talk 05:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 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 WP:BIO (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. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable per Matilda. Sarah 05:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the BLP is probably as notable as lots and lots of other articles on Wikipedia, and yes while the premise of the BLP originally was weak, it does serve some purpose. Mind you I would prefer that the article be just about Lyall Howard, not about speculations about Lyall Howard nor the whole Copra issue (which is a POV fork from John Howard). Shot info (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral reluctant to support deletion due to the amount of animosity that will result at the JH article, noting I did try to have this article included in an RFC over John Howard, but like all issues around JH there are too many editors with extreme POV that forget we are writing an encyclopedia from an neutral point of view. I withdrew the original nomination saying Withdrawn by nominator while I still have concerns about notability, part of that was about trying to find some middle ground over the plantations issues this articles appeared to be a good solution.
    For what its worth the chance meeting in WWI wasnt as uncommon as it was reported to be in the papers 80 years after the event, something I've only recently discovered. Future Western Australian Premier Ross McLarty who was recovering from injuries in London had a chance meeting with his brother Douglas who was in London recovering pneumonia they met while walking down the street, where as the Howard meeting was when one Australian battalion was replacing another. IMHO the Howard meeting would have been as much a chance meeting as it was a contrived meeting because both would have known the battalion each other was in and when battalions crossed paths they like many other men would have searched for family/friends
    The Plantation issues are something that is interesting but it should be in an article about the whole distribution of German assets received by Australia at the end of WWI, the amount of land that Lyall obtained was insignificant. His association with the plantations was only used in an opinion piece to disparage John Howards assertions that he came from a working class background. Coverage in this article does enable more detail and highlights the insignificance of this, initially that wasnt the case with this article which was why I nominated it the first time.
    So my conclusion is that while Lyall isnt self notable, the article does have enough content to be a daughter article. As a daughter article it can address concerns in relation to WP:BLP with John Howard by presenting the full plantation issue, with the other information just being interesting points to round out an article. Gnangarra 11:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As nominator I note I was not part of the earlier discussion about Copra plantations and have in fact no views on the topic either way. I don't think this is a rationale to keep the article, rather we should have an article on the topic. Gnangarra has suggested an article scope which seems useful - distribution of German assets received by Australia at the end of WWI. I think the animosity has died down at the JH article - quiet talk page and few edits.
      I agree that the Lyall article is interesting, my concern is what is the precedent to have such an article. Wikipedia is not about genealogy, it isn't a memorial and ordinary people are not topics for inclusion. I too can write an interesting article about my grandfather, his role in war time, chance meeting with relatives (he did), ... He was in fact more notable in the community than Lyall Howard and I can support with hundreds of newspaper refs (we have a cuttings book) and it wouldn't be just one event. My grandfather doesn't come within the scope of wikipedia and nor does Lyall Howard.
      The biggest justification for the daughter article is the involvement in Copra plantations - let's write about Copra plantations in New Guinea (we already have an article. I suspect the Howard involvement in that industry wasn't by itself notable. One of the relevant articles is this piece in the Sydney Morning Herald by David Marr in June 2006: But Howard's father had another life. While this old soldier worked his humble Sydney service station, he was also - on paper - a New Guinea planter with a string of estates where 200 native labourers grew copra in his name. Lyall Howard had cashed in his status as a returned digger to "dummy" for the trading house W. R. Carpenter and Company Ltd. His own father, Walter, was doing it, too. The Howard case provoked secret, official investigations at the highest levels in Canberra, but they and their powerful backer got away with the scam. Even an article on W. R. Carpenter and Company Ltd would seem to have more claim to notability. Marr's piece would be an excellent starting point for references on an article on the topic or the event. I would have no difficulty with any reference to the Howard family in such an article as long as it has perspective. --Matilda talk 21:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lester, patrol/cleanup as necessary per Shot info. — Athaenara ✉ 01:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete totally non-notable article used for pushing POV, secondly a "one in a million chance" doens't make something notable, otherwise every lottery jackpot winner gets an articlee. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mattinbgn. I am not convinced that this article passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). Simply being someone's father does not make someone notable in their own right IMO. Khoikhoi 03:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Immediate family f heads of state and heads of government have invariably public interest, & if t here are sources to write an article, they are notable enough for Wikipedia . DGG (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blnguyen; POV fork. —Giggy 04:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Cannot see any sign of notability Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, knowing or being related to someone noteable is not grounds for noteability. He can be mentioned along with his minor controversies at JH. Other examples like "I can think of this article that is similar but kept" is not a valid argument on wikipedia. And 'if there are sources to write an article, they are notable enough for Wikipedia' simply is not true. If it causes animosity at JH, so be it (I don't edit there myself anymore), as it shouldn't stop a valid AfD going ahead. I hope Gnan sees the issue there. Lastly, I had a look at a cat used, Australian military personnel of World War I. I took a peek at two random ones just to see what establishes their noteability, Arthur Henry Cobby and Edgar McCloughry. Howard's relatives couldn't come within cooee if they tried. Timeshift (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merely being related to the ex-PM does not make you notable. From WP:N: "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.". Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Per Bluyngen. Five Years 12:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EXPANDING ARTICLE: I believe the article has passed the threshold of Wikipedia notability. However, because some (not all) comments (above) said the content is not notable, I will expand the article during the next week. The Lyall Howard story has been covered by innumerable books, newspapers, and magazines, so I will include many new references.--Lester 22:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep but heavy pruning needed. It appears that Lester has expanded the article to try to show more notability, but I think the expansion has detracted from it. LH is notable for only one reason: his involvement in the Copra plantations is an item of very small, but still significant, political interest in Australia (and PNG, it seems). But it is out of all proportion to put the details in the John Howard article because it all happened, except for some tidying up paperwork, before JH was even born. So the only solution I can see is to create a small LH article and put the details there. It needs to be shortened to only include the notable items, making the entire article about two or three paragraphs long, saying little more than this: "LH (birth year - death year) was the father of former Australian PM John Howard. A WWI veteran, he was a dummy owner in the Copra plantations in New Guinea, which was a (very) minor political issue for John Howard..." Then a couple of sentences of details of the years of the dummy ownership, and references for further reading. All the rest of the article is irrelevant and is what makes it look deletion-worthy. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete odd article that contains two photos that don't even include him. Seems to be a "coatrack" to hang surrounding issues onto him. See Other Side (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ironically, I believe the reasoning given by Mattinbgn is an excellent reason to keep the stuff (which is notable, but entirely irrelevant to JH) here and not have it hanging off the JH article like some undue-weight curse (that article already has plenty of them). The guy is independently notable, and the head of a family which produced several notable offspring (one of Howard's brothers was a university professor and noted author - as is often the case in these families, not of the same political views as his father and brother - and another was an entrepreneur and company director). If decision is made to delete, the relevant content should be merged into a new article, Howard family (Australia) with abbreviated information about, and links to where appropriate, the various different family members. Orderinchaos 09:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. WWGB (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on The Great War - I wish to draw peoples' attention to a new reference that has been added to the Lyall Howard article. This book titled The Great War, by author Les Carlyon. It's the best selling book ever about Australians in World War I, and the Australian War Memorial describes its author as the envy of other war historians. Lyall Howard is given extensive coverage throughout this book, without the name "John Howard" there. Of course, when the book is reviewed, Prime Minister John Howard's comment is often sought, but the news reports are still nonetheless documenting the actions of Lyall Howard, rather than the actions of John Howard, and that's the important distinction. Nobody is suggesting that Lyall Howard is a war hero above other soldiers, or that he achieved military gallantry like some others. Lyall Howard stands out because he documented the war, making a handwritten note every day on the battlefield, with the exception of one month when his battalion was under fire from the Germans. The author refers to Lyall repeatedly throughout the book, to capture the human side of World War I. Thus, we should leave it to Australia's greatest war historian to determine whether Lyall's story is a story worthy of being told.--Lester 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment re The Great War by Les Carlyon - 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 WP:NOTMEMORIAL - 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. --Matilda talk 22:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the middle of preparing my response (I have the book as well) but reading this, Matilda has covered everything I was going to say and more (and much better that I possibly could). Carlyon uses LHs diary not because it is unique or special or different from the many other war diaries kept, but because he would later be the father of a person known to all Australians. Once again, LHs "notability" such as it is, derives from his familial relationship and not from anything notable that he has done. LH was a perfectly ordinary soldier, small business man, husband and father without any claim to notoriety other than the fact that, after his death, his son would become PM. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matilda and Mattingbgn. I'm pleased that you both own books that include Lyall Howard. In the book, The Great War, the index page lists the following: Index : Howard, Private Lyall 552-3, 691, 745, 747, 772. The passages in the book about Lyall Howard are actually longer than what Matilda has quoted, and longer than what I have put in the article. The first 5 Lyall Howard pages listed in the book's index don't mention a word about John Howard. At the very back of the book there is a page that gives a description of what became of the men who were the subjects of the book. On this page, under Lyall Howard, the book says: (Quote) "Walter Howard and his son Lyall opened a petrol station at Dulwich Hill, Sydney. Lyall never recovered from his gassing: he suffered from chronic bronchitis and skin rashes. He died in 1955, age fifty-nine. John, his son, became Prime Minister of Australia in 1996." So we have 5 pages spaced throughout the book that feature Lyall Howard on the battlefield. At the very back it says that Lyall died of bronchitis and his son went on to become Prime Minister. It can't be disputed that the subject matter in the book is about Lyall Howard, not John Howard. As to the author's motives for including Lyall Howard in Australia's best selling war history book, this discussion has suggested 2 possible motives: (1) Lyall was included in the book because of his battlefield diary notes, or (2) Lyall only got included in the book because of his famous son. I say it is original research to question why Lyall Howard was included in Australia's biggest selling war history book. The Australian public has already voted on the legitimacy of this book with their wallets, making it the most popular account of Australians in World War I that there is. The author of the book is an esteemed historian, so it's not for us to question the author's motives. Regards, --Lester 23:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't twist my words - the passages I have quoted from two of the five indexed refs are no longer than what I quoted. the first ref does indeed introduce Lyall Howard over two pages and several paragraphs; the last reference gives him some more detail too. You are implying that Lyall Howard is extensively quoted - he is not. I was trying to show what Carlyon was doing with Lyall Howard and the extent of his importance in Carlyon's eyes. As I see it Carlyon is using Lyall Howard to give the views of an ordinary soldier - Carlyon is not asserting Lyall Howard is notable! any more than any of us are notable. Lyall is certainly included because he kept a diary - his dairy is quoted from as showing no great insight confided into that diary about the events around him. Laconic would be defined by Lyall Howard's diary (but without any sense of wit) - Carlyon is trying to infer that most ordinary soldiers were laconic. It is not inappropriate to speculate here as to the author's motives for including Lyall Howard as they run to the core of whether or not he is notable which is the subject of this debate. The policy of no original research applies when we start to put those theories into article space, and in that space it would indeed be inappropriate.--Matilda talk 00:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding other World Leaders: I was curious about how Wikipedia deals with other world leaders. Here's the result: Margaret Thatcher's father, Tony Blair's father, Bill Clinton's father and mother, Hillary Clinton's father and mother, Barack Obama's father and mother, John McCain's father and mother. Compare the notability of Bill & Hillary's mothers (who are housewives) with Lyall Howard. While it could be argued that the content of other articles has no baring on this one, it shows a precedent. Lyall Howard provides additional notability by his other life events being included in news articles and books. May I also point out that the biography John Winston Howard, by author Peter van Onselen contains 3 pages about the life and activities of Lyall Howard. Regards, --Lester 00:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would say that Lester has come up with a compelling argument here which addresses notability precedents. Above I asked whether Lyall Howard is not in some way distinguished from the Beckham and Spear's progeny who are after all infants ... and have done nothing more notable than be their parents' children. Dorothy Howell Rodham to me is no more notable than Lyall Howard - I don't think I am merely anti US when suggesting that the mother-in-law of a president and the mother of a US Senator and former presidential candidate who values her privacy is ... but I wouldn't dare nominate for deletion. I think this is not merely OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but a distinguishing point of notability and the invalid criteria. Before withdrawing the nomination I will wait for other people's views --Matilda talk 01:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree; his argument re: Rodham still boils down to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because I would not nominate another similar article does not make LHs any more suitable for inclusion. Change has to start somewhere and I strongly feel that Wikipedia's guidelines on notable people need tightening and are slowly tightening; whether or not the article is kept in the end, the level of support for deletion here reflects this swing in opinion. Secondly, the nomination has now gone too far down the track to be withdrawn. By all means feel free to strike your vote and change your opinion, but I don't feel you can withdraw a nomination that has attracted this level of comment. Certainly my views remain the same as when I originally commented; the article is a POV fork about an otherwise non-notable person. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note Mattinbgn's comments about too late to withdraw nom and frustrate others who have offered their opinion - change my !vote to weak keep on the basis there are multiple independent reliable sources and Lyall Howard is of comparable notability to relatives of other leaders, if not more so.--Matilda talk 02:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is full of guff about Pokemon and Star Trek that I do not care for. But there are fans who rejoice in information about their preferred interest, and Wikipedia is an excellent repository and starting point for further research. Lyall Howard may not be a great figure of history like his son, but he is not a nobody. More to the point, Lester has done some magnificent research, making this article a sparkling interest piece, a small but clear window into Australia of many generations back. I'd certainly never heard of the practice of "dummying" before Lester inserted it (inappropriately IMHO) into the JH article, but through Lyall Howard we gain an insight. I'd hate to see all this splendid work flushed away. --Pete (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lyall_Howard_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1088208847"