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 delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nassir El-Assaad[edit]

Nassir El-Assaad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cedar Revolution. I have not found any reliable references in English, but what I have found pointed to the article subject's involvement in that event. I suspect searching in French and Arabic sources would provide better results, but because of the variability of transliterating Arabic names to English search terms, my ability to search correctly is limited. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Eggishorn: Normally I would be all right with considering a redirect, but the unsourced article nominated for deletion does not verify his involvement with the The Cedar Revolution, and the proposed redirect target has no mention of him. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000:, Usually I don't advocate redirects without that information but in this particular case, my searches have given me the distinct impression that I'm being too parochial. Even if I don't think any one individual source counts as WP:RS for notability purposes, there's enough in sum to give me the belief that non-English sources probably do exist. Perhaps the correct thing is to delete and hope those with access and understanding of such putative sources re-create it. Thanks for the reply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:17, 13 February 2017 (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.