Deletion of Shemayel (2nd nomination)

Comment: I’m not “asserting that unspecified sources exist”. I’m directing you to the specific sources used in the ar.wiki article, which are from multiple RIS in several different countries over a period of years. I’m not making an argument that because there is an ar.wiki article we ought to have an en.wiki one. I’m pointing out that a very modest amount of  would show show you that there are sources ready to hand that ought to be considered. I’d appreciate anyone taking the trouble to set out which of these sources is not sufficient to support this article.  isn’t a ‘bureaucratic technicality’. If the sources I’ve pointed to aren’t good enough, say why not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) nor  ("the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources"). This is a 2006 |unsourced |BLP that could have been BLP-prodded.  states: {{tq|Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the ''English language Wikipedia'' should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject.}}, which means that any notability standards of ar.wiki are not applicable.  states: {{tq|The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.}}, added with : {{tq|If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. ''However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive'', especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.}} This article has existed in contempt of policies and guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NMUSIC||WP:UNSOURCED||WP:BLP||WP:WHYN||WP:NRVE||WP:NEXIST)