Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunde Varga-Atkins


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Tunde Varga-Atkins

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It does not meet the requirements for WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Not notable. Kemalcan (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Citations on GS much too small to pass WP:Prof in high cited field. Far WP:Too soon. Try again in ten years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC).
 * Delete WP:TOOSOON she received her PhD in 2019, her citations are too low for NPROF and it is unclear what her unique contribution to the field would be. --hroest 05:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Does seem like WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - per the above delete votes. 2603:7000:2143:8500:40E5:C46D:4560:BA39 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - edited some explanation and citations to explain the public relevance of her work. It may be WP:TOOSOON however.Kaybeesquared (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your additions just add trivial bloat to an already bloated and almost content-free article. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC).
 * Agreed. It was an bloated article. Now it is over-bloated. The article still does not show any significance to meet requirements for WP:GNG and WP:PROF however. --Kemalcan (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2021 (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.