Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mualimin Mochammad Sahid


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 14:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Mualimin Mochammad Sahid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mualimin Mochammad Sahid would appear to me to fail WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF, and any number of other relevant policies and guidelines. Let's see what happens. Shirt58 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as not meeting the guidelines listed. I respect the decision of Shirt58 but I feel it merits speedy deletion; I would disagree that being a Senior Lecturer at a university/college by itself is a "credible claim of significance"; otherwise, we would have numerous articles on unremarkable college professors.  I think it also might qualify for speedy deletion as promotional; it just seems to be the person's resume. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends on the university system. In many commonwealth countries, Sr. Lecturer is equivalent to professor in the US.  However, not a precednet on Sr. Lecturers, but on this case, Delete. No claim of significance that would pass PROF or GNG -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete No pass of anything. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I tend to think that content such as this that is unambiguously a cv rather than a third-person description of the subject could be a G11 speedy, since the main purpose of a cv is to sell yourself, but probably such a rule would be abused to delete articles that are less bad than this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete No sources, promotional and not notable. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. CV. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.