The result was Delete. I am not insensitive to the cogent arguments given both in support of keeping this article and in support of merging its contents elsewhere. It is true that WP:ONEEVENT is mis-applied at times, but that doesn't mean this is such a case. It is also true that the information could be kept elsewhere. However, I find the arguments for deletion more convincing when looked at in context of the article itself and the subject himself. Even after a good bit of discussion (I wouldn't call it lengthy, but it's certainly more than trivial), the most the article can come up with is "it has been reported" and "previously unknown" and "only a hint" - phrases which either are or come perilously close to WP:WEASEL words. I'm not using WP:WEASEL to support deletion, but the normal response to it is to fix it - the problem is that when you pull out all of that, what you get is an article about an alias of a Lebanese man who died while building a bomb - and that's not the stuff of which encyclopedic articles are made. That he may have been intending to kill a notable person associated with a notable scandal - an assertion which does not appear to be well-supported in reliable sources - does not make him notable. This is a recurring theme in the discussion below, as evidenced by comments (on both sides of the debate) citing WP:V, "little hard information", "trivial coverage", etc. Frank | talk 16:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
This article would normally be a clear candidate for deletion under WP:ONEEVENT. However, per WP:PRESERVE I propose that it is renamed February 2009 Salman Rushdie assassination attempt and the text reworked in line with this new title. SP-KP ( talk) 10:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply