Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evianne van Gijn


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Evianne van Gijn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Suspect a conflict of interest – creator and major contributor to article has only edited this page and another page to provide a link to it. The photo of the subject is also uploaded by the page creator, and described as the subject's own work. I am new to this, but I also suspect the subject may not meet the notability requirements in any case. Nthsealord (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  02:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  02:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  02:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Though there may be a COI, I still think keep because she is president of University of Cambridge Graduate Union, which is notable. The subject also appears to be covered in a handful of reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Head of a student union is not notable per se, nor are other aspects like being a lobbyist. Subject appears to be a somewhat freshly-minted PhD...perhaps notable in the future, but clearly not now. Agricola44 (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:41, 17 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.