Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Chin (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Walter Chin}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Walter_Chin_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Walter Chin}})

Self-promo. Source also shows that. NovaSkola (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

: Keep - Looking at the earlier nomination that was closed as a Keep, nobody seems to have incorporated the cited sources into the article - despite the closing request that someone do so to avoid this article being renominated! So per earlier discussion, sources exist and significantly, despite a couple of initial delete votes, once the sources were raised, subsequent votes were to Keep. This article needs improvement, not deletion. Mabalu (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

:: Nobody? *heaves deep sigh* OK, revised article up now. The sources cited in the other AFD were kinda crappy, but I found loads more, and I think now sufficient notability (and there's plenty more sources out there) has been demonstrated. I'd say this guy is definitely a keep now. Mabalu (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. The article now doesn't look promotional. I've verified the claim of one book from Schirmer Mosel and one from Stemmle; both are publishers of good photobooks, and so the biographee is notable. -- Hoary (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2014 (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.