Nael Eltoukhy : As always, writers are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to show notability markers such as notable literary awards and/or the reception of WP:GNG -worthy coverage about them and their work in real reliable sources -- but the only notability claim being attempted here is that his work exists, and the only source being cited is his "staff" profile on the self-published website of his own publisher, which is not a notability-building source.  As I can't read Arabic, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with the necessary language skills and resource access can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it -- but nothing in this version of the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Egypt .  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I honestly want to save this article but BEFORE doesn't help, most sources are just passing mentions, mentions mostly about his book (Women of Karantina).  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 08:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  To me the subject dose not meet neither the WP:BIO nor the WP:GNG .  Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 12:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Salvage .  I agree the 'article' can't be called an article.  However his work is very popular in Egypt and the Arab world, and so I started an attempt to salvage it.  Ypedia1 ( talk ) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  This article needs additional review after article improvements.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment there is an ar.wiki article at ناءل الطوخي but I can’t connect it in Wikidata because of things that make my head explode.  Mccapra ( talk ) 22:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there are loads of reliable independent sources e.g. 1 , 2 , 3 and many more.  Mccapra ( talk ) 22:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mccapra Keep with its current state or keep if the sources you mentioned "and many more" can be added to the article to expand it?  I mean, I wouldn't mind striking my previous ! vote, just not with its current state.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 10:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well AfD isn’t for cleanup.  If there are sources to demonstrate notability it’s not a requirement to fix the article right away to save it from deletion.  Mccapra ( talk ) 00:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: No one has performed an analysis of the sources added or presented.   If I had to close right now, I would close as no consensus.   But I'm relisting in hope for a more definitive answer.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment ok I will start on this and add as I find more.  1. Review of his work in a chapter of a book on contemporary Egyptian literature here .  Mccapra ( talk ) 09:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply  ] 2. multiple references to his writing as a blogger in this scholarly work on contemporary Egyptian writers  3. independent in depth review of one of his novels in a major international newspaper  4. independent in depth review of another one of his novels in a major newspaper  5. another independent in depth review of the same novel  6. independent in depth review of a third novel  7. Independent in depth review of the same novel as no.6 above.  I’ll stop here but if more is needed I’ll keep looking.  Mccapra ( talk ) 09:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve also managed to connect it to the ar.wiki article on wikidata.  Mccapra ( talk ) 09:50, 10 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus