Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Kwong


 * 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 per consensus and added sources. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy Kwong

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A bit of a procedural nomination. I declined a speedy on this unreferenced BLP, since it didn't qualify under WP:CSD:CSD, but couldn't find any reliable sources for this (English+Machine translated Chinese), so I'm throwing it here. Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - He is same as Ting Wo Kwong and as cinematographer a large number of films (including Shaolin Soccer). His aliases listed are : Kwong Ting-Wa,  Kwong Ting-Wo,  Cheng Ting-Wo,  Andy Kwong,  Kuang Tinghe . Searching in google using Ting Wo Kwong or Kwong Ting Wo or Gwong Ting-Woh produces a lot of results and films. As a nominee for Hong Kong Film Award for Best Cinematography for 2002, he easily has notability--Sodabottle (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep in agreement with Sodabottle. While English sourcing of a notable Chinese filmmaker... specially one with several AKAs... will be difficult, it can eventually be done through the course of regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep-Personally ran out of steam with editing this article, but compare the first diff of this article with its current form, the accumulated effort of the community means progress is being made however slow. There is nothing so outrageous or libelous in the article that would demand its immediate deletion.KTo288 (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2010 (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.