Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Lee


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Willie Lee
Tagged as a speedy with the reason "Non notable airman. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database nor a collection of obituaries. Why is Willie Lee notable compared to the thousands of other airman slaughtered in WWII?". Nonetheless, at the bottom of the article we have "His name is on the Roll of Honour in the Hall of Memory at Auckland Museum.". This is in my view an assertion of notability, although I am not at all sure that it is sufficient for inclusion. Still I think we should discuss this one. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nce Ong 14:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete; no assertion of notability -- I wouldn't consider the standard listing given to every NZ soldier who died in WWII such an assertion. It's a well-written article (and is the original editor's sole contribution, so I don't think anyone would mind Rchan writing more noteworthy articles), but from what I'm seeing this is just an average joe who signed up in time of war, like everyone else, and died in training before ever seeing combat, as many did.  Wikipedia is not a memorial.  RGTraynor 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Halls of Memory record every person who served and as such is not a claim to notability. Delete unless we can establish a verifiable source indicating notability. Capitalistroadster 23:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 23:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * DO NOT Delete; The reason that I wrote the article is that that Willie Lee is the only Chinese Spitfire pilot in WWII (how many of them did you think there were?). How can this be non notable? Where I come from, his story has inspired generations of Chinese New Zealanders (I should know, I'm one of them).
 * DO NOT Delete; The reason that I wrote the article is that that Willie Lee is the only Chinese Spitfire pilot in WWII (how many of them did you think there were?). How can this be non notable? Where I come from, his story has inspired generations of Chinese New Zealanders (I should know, I'm one of them).

Unlike other "average joes", Willie wasn't just another volanteer, he literally forced his way in. And all this for a country that disliked him and where he was a second class citizen. In his shoes I would have left them to it. If any of us achieve half as much in our lives then we'll be lucky. I'm sure the article about Winston Churchill says where he was born and when, where and how he died. By your definition sounds like an obituary to me but I don't see anyone trying to delete that article.

To say Willie Lee is non notable is an insult to a unique individual and thousands of Asians that "stood up to be counted" in a war that quite frankly was none of their business (Does "defending your way of life" include getting spat on in the street and getting the cr*p kicked out of you regularly? Don't even get me started on this topic.).

As I'm still trying to write the article (and probably will be for the next several weeks), I'm highly disappointed that you all are so set on shouting me down and deleting my work before I've even finished. Your response will dictate whether I continue to contribute or write off Wikipedia as just one big joke. Rchan


 * If Willie Lee has inspired generations of Chinese New Zealanders, there must be some articles or a book written about him. If there is no such written material, then the article becomes unverifiable. Even if the written material is only available in Chinese, please provide a reference to it. It doesn't have to be online. I vote reluctantly to delete the article, but I'll change my vote if such a reference can be given.-gadfium 00:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think notability has been demonstrated by the editor who created this article. Let's see how it develops. --Bduke 00:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability has been demonstrated, especially since the article not only lacks sources, it's mostly speculative. And this is for a fighter pilot who, if the article is to be believed, never saw combat and died in a training accident. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I am disappointed that the editor has chosen to be so upset about this AfD. As someone who has suffered serveral AfDs and continued to write, I think he should gird his loins.  I put this article up for a speedy on the grounds that there was no notability indicated in the article.  The editor makes a range of assertions but has not backed them up with verifiable evidence which is what WP requires.  The editor says that deletion of this article shows WP to be a joke.  I suggest otherwise - that it shows a willingness of fellow editors to make sure that articles that appear demonstrate notability.  There are 120,000 dead Australian soldiers, sailors, airmen and nurses listed at the Australian War Memorial.  Nearly all were volunteers.  Many were 'foreigners' and yet we do not write articles for all of them.  I am happy to change my vote if you can show he was notable and the information you present is verifiable.  And by making this statement I am not insulting anyone. Maustrauser 10:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete, but I'd change my vote to keep if we can find something published that indicates he was inspirational or was the only Chinese spitfire pilot. -- Avenue 12:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of sources and notability is dicey to say the least.--Cini 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn bio. incog 02:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.