Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anahid Modrek

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Dismissing all of the arguments from sock accounts, there is a clear consensus for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anahid Modrek

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Anahid Modrek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is for an assistant professor and doesn't appear to meet any of the 8 criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. The creater's draft submission was declined for this very reason, yet the article got created anyway. This is a typical assistant professor with typical research output and coverage in a few university webpages. Nothing that meets WP:NACADEMIC. ZimZalaBim talk 16:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added fellowships and notability addressing the the criteria for an academic. Spicymagnet (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the wrong kinds of fellowships. WP:PROF asks for a level of honorary membership in a major academic society for which this is a significant honor, often called a fellowship. Small research grants are also often called fellowships but are a totally different thing. Employment at certain academic employers (especially postdoctorates) is also sometimes called a fellowship but is another totally different thing. Only the honorary membership meaning counts. Even among academic societies not all membership-type fellowships count; the ones for which this is a highly selective honor count but the ones for which pretty much anyone can be a fellow by joining and paying a membership fee do not count. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DE, sockpuppetry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The fellowships listed are awards, not “paid” memberships. 2603:8000:A200:2100:D488:6684:ED2D:279 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the fellowships and grants listed are all awarded through competition /selection committees. None of the awards or fellowships or granting agencies are “paid” memberships. This isn’t a typical assistant professor. 2603:8000:A200:2100:D488:6684:ED2D:279 (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC) — 2603:8000:A200:2100:D488:6684:ED2D:279 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
None of these contribute to notability through any criterion of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 2. These aren’t normal awards and grants this person has gotten. This isn’t a normal assistant professor. 2603:8000:A200:2100:D488:6684:ED2D:279 (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Usually, assistant professors are not notable here, unless they have won major international awards or similar-level recognition for their work. In this case, nothing like that is visible and her citation counts on Google Scholar are only in the double digits (in a high-citation field), so she does appear to be an exception to the usual case. Additionally, I have repeatedly cut back edits that provide information about the subject that appears to be based on personal information rather than published sources, suggesting that there is some kind of undeclared WP:COI problem here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep the fellowships and grants listed are all awarded through competition /selection committees. None of the awards or fellowships or granting agencies are “paid” memberships. This isn’t a typical assistant professor. 2603:8000:A200:2100:D488:6684:ED2D:279 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck through your repeated comment. Editors are only allowed to contribute one boldface opinion to AfD discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The output and the funding agencies are not typical, especially for psychological science. 2603:8000:A200:2100:D488:6684:ED2D:279 (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep. notability is clear, just because they are assistant professor level doesn't mean they are not notable. Their output is not normal for psychological science and the empirical nature of the work and several funding sources are all grants/awards (not things that are paid for). I.e., the fellowships are also highly selective and notable in their niche.
Spicymagnet (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Spicymagnet (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
— Spicymagnet (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate.
  • Keep. This isn't a normal person. The amount of fundings agencies - as listed, from the Hewlett Foundation, to the citation that includes funding from the UBS Optimus Foundation; World Bank Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund, Early Learning Partnership, British Academy’s Early Childhood Development Programme, GCRF Early Childhood Education, United Kingdom Government’s Global Challenges Research Fund, Department for International Development, etc.
There are studies she has with participant samples of over 20K... that's not typical.
Their CV also shows they have funding from B&M Gates Foundation. So that should be added.
This isn't a normal person, and is notable because they are at this point even as an assistant professor. 2603:8000:A200:2100:F1A2:D8C:2A5C:B920 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC) — 2603:8000:A200:2100:F1A2:D8C:2A5C:B920 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You fail to understand WP:NACADEMIC; despite getting some grants and doing work on large samples doesn't inherently meet our notability guidelines. Further, since many edits have come from the 2603:8000:A200:2100 IP range, I urge you to be aware of WP:IPSOCK just to ensure these are all separate individuals --ZimZalaBim talk 20:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep. I actually went ahead and read some of this person's work - not just looking at the wiki page or their other public profiles.
There's one paper that followed over 2,000 children in Africa for over a decade. This isn't a normal project for someone at the assistant professor level
I did read the comments and criteria, and this meets the first/second criteria of notability. Thus funding agencies are ample.
I did see the "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website..." message, and I am not sure if this is a common message but I also think its quite an attack on public voice.
No, I have not been asked by this person or anyone they know to read this.
I just use wikipedia and trust it, and I don't understand why there are all these men writing down the accomplishments of this female academic.
I don't have a wikipedia account or page so I don't know how to sign this. 2603:8000:A200:2100:E851:7A31:EBA9:E5C0 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC) — 2603:8000:A200:2100:E851:7A31:EBA9:E5C0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"I don't understand why there are all these men writing down the accomplishments of this female academic." <-- I urge you to assume good faith. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep (and please read why/ what I have to say).
Okay, hello everyone. I've never participated in one of these, but I do have something to say.
First, I was not asked by anyone to read this and this was not sent to me.
Second, I am not an academic or a Professor.
Third, and perhaps more importantly, I am just a musician and actually came across this person's page because it was linked to an artist I was reading about.
This page, and this person, needs to stay. This is a talent, and I don't see people like this too often - and no, I don't think this is (as others are saying) a 'normal' or 'typical' professor.
I did read some of her work (disclaimer: just the abstract!), as I don't have access to the full articles, and I see what might be happening here.
For instance, there is a study she published doing research on 20 schools across the U.S., and as others stated, one study that has a sample of over 20,000 people in it, and one study with a sample of 2 thousand children from Ghana followed for a decade. These were all her papers/corresponding, and funded by different agencies. I'm not a professor, but I do know professors, and this isn't something they can pull off at the assistant level. These aren't normal projects and their caliber are not something we see this early on. That in itself is notable.
also, looking at the criteria link for academics - the funding they have gotten is not a small accolade. Funding from the Hewlett Foundation is so rare, even I know that. The deeper learning fellowship is a funded award.
The page, I think, just needs to be more encyclopedic, AND/also, perhaps more clear about what studies they've done. One perfect example is that I'm not able to access the full journal article, so maybe including the value and details of the studies - or at least one or two, so we have more insight into the caliber of work she is doing. To me, these studies and data are more impactful than just writing a book. And then of course noting the prestige of the awards and fellowships and being part of these societies.
I know there are professors here who have commented - and I may represent the less educated - I did find this person's work very interesting, and I think she should stay on here. There are people like me, I'm sure, that might want to actually follow this person and their career. I use wikipedia. I might not be super sophisticated in my own reading and citation practices, but, i do read wikipedia.
I still don't know how to sign, but I will put the squiggle dashes at the bottom like it is recommending I do so.
I'll share that I went to the Jurassic Museum of Technology a couple weeks ago, and saw an artist's work Hagop Sandaldjian and purchased his book at the gift shop. Today, I googled him, and her profile linked to his. That's how I saw all this.
So, if you want to know who I am, you can call the museum and ask for a list of attendees from the last week of June :).
Otherwise, I do not know enough about how this works to put my full name here.
20:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC) 2603:8000:A200:2100:E41A:F69A:1CCC:AD27 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC) — 2603:8000:A200:2100:E41A:F69A:1CCC:AD27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Deleting Anahid Modrek off Hagop Sandaldjian’s page is inappropriate 2603:8000:A200:2100:44CB:B854:C929:9C45 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Spicymagnet (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting pages/links such as the Luys Foundation just because Anahid Modrek is linked is extremely concerning given it is strategic and targeting her - this shows you are not operating in good faith and instead exploiting an agenda 2603:8000:A200:2100:44CB:B854:C929:9C45 (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, agreed. Spicymagnet (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable living person, family member, and academic. There is significant coverage, reliable sources, and independent of the subject. Meets WP:GNG.
76.176.219.32 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Struck repeat bolded vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anahid_Modrek&oldid=1301988749"