Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amr Waked

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Someone rescued it; it does not resemble the original bad state. — Timneu22 · talk 23:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amr Waked[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real third-party indication of notability. Looks like this article is designed to give notice to the topic, not to cover it. — Timneu22 · talk 16:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yup. Another new article from someone who does not understand WP:MOS. However, the subject seems to meet WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO... and since surmountable issues are no reason to delete, I'll have a go at fixing it up and report back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep After doing some work on the article, I'm back. With respects to User:Timneu22, his nomination seems to be based upon the then-current state of a 7-minute-old article without having addressed its potential for improvement... and I am reminded that AFD is not intended to "force cleanup". Tagging it for his concerns might have been better than imediately prodding it for speedy and then sending in to AFD 4 hours after the tag was declined without an actual discussion with the author and giving him a chance to address those concerns. And yes, a bot did notify the newbie author of the article being tagged for speedy deletion, and the newbie then responded on his own talk page. Nominating it for deletion 4 hours after the prod was declined is not quite what I mean by "discussion" of a notable subject... specially as an easily found article in Bloomberg [1] acts as an example of how this Egyptian actor's career is finally getting coverage in the West, while other search results show him as being an award-winning and decently notable actor in Egypt.... and notable in Egypt is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. And even without the growing coverage that leaks over to the U.S., the article is assuredly a keeper. I ask that the nom consider a withdrawal... as what started as this has so far become THIS and is being improved even further through the use of numerous reliable sources available. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}. It's amazing what a little bit of effort can accomplish in here. The subject is notable, even important. Evalpor (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2010 (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.