Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magali Elise Roques


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Magali Elise Roques

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject is a fairly junior French academic (2012 PhD), was a postdoc until 2019. She has been involved in a significant plagiarism controversy this year, and several of her journal papers have been retracted. The article was originally deleted as G10 (I believe incorrectly), and the deletion was overturned at WP:DRV, see Nov 16, 2020 section there. IMO, minus the plagiarism controversy, the subject is not yet notable academically. The article lists several awards, but they are basically all PhD/postdoc level fellowships which WP:PROF specifically excludes from contributing to academic notability. The only possible exception is the Prix Jeunes Chercheurs from Fondation des Treilles (2017). However, the foundation's website shows that this is also an award for finishing PhD students and postdocs, so not relevant for academic notability under WP:PROF. I am not seeing much of anything else to indicate academic notability as such, e.g. published reviews (minus the discussion of plagiarism), high citability, etc. The plagiarism case did receive coverage, but to me this situation looks like a WP:BIO1E case with significant negative BLP implications. I think that the plagiarism incidents deserves to be included in List of scientific misconduct incidents, but I don't believe that a separate biographical article about the subject is warranted here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please note that there's also a biologist by the name 'Magali Roques' unrelated to the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I have been part of the discussions on several talk pages and the speedy deletion DRV page. I agree with Nsk92, especially the point regarding WP:BIO1E (edit: and WP:PSEUDO) with negative BLP consequences. I support including this case in the List of scientific misconduct incidents (or the humanities equivalent of it). FlybellFly (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I was very disappointed to see that this had been overturned at DRV. WP:G10 specifically notes "Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met." As such this should not have been restored, especially since a supermajority endorsed the close, in a similar vein as to how WP:G12 wouldn't be restored if a strong minority of users familiar with copyright endorsed. I think it still qualifies for speedy deletion, but since we're here and there's been a DRV, I must note that she fails WP:BLP1E, and I still think that this qualifies as an attack page since she's otherwise not notable under WP:NPROF or WP:GNG and the page serves no other purpose. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have added an entry about the subject to List of scientific misconduct incidents. Nsk92 (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The article needs more on the plagarism scandal, rather than a long-winded list of what she's published. If the scandal receives enough coverage, could be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per my concerns explained at WP:DRV: "I came across this article while clearing WP:RFPP, where Lightbluerain had requested semiprotection due to vandalism concerns. Instead of protecting it, I deleted the page because it appeared to be a largely negative WP:COATRACK article about a BLP, intended to focus entirely on the plagiarism controversy concerning this person. I don't agree that the coverage of the plagiarism issues, at least what was included in citations in the article, is sufficient to meet the WP:GNG and she does not appear to be sufficiently notable for an article outside of that, which is why I've asked Melchior2006 to bring it to DRV." I understand the DRV result, but still believe the article ought to be deleted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is possible to have articles about people famous only for academic misconduct, but it needs to rise above run-of-the-mill incidents: there needs to be long-term and ongoing interest in the case, not just an incident or incidents reported at the time of discovery. In this case, that standard hasn't yet been met. And there's no evidence of being notable in other ways. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete As I said at the DRV: I looked up the subject, and I do not see any way that the subject could pass WP:PROF. If the retracted publications had all been legitimate, the record would still be one of an unremarkable early-career academic. (There is another Magali Roques, a cell biologist at Universität Bern, who is much more prominent than the philosopher on Google Scholar.) The plagiarism incident has not itself attracted significant attention &mdash; the Daily Nous post mentioned by is all I can find. Retraction Watch just points to the Daily Nous without doing a writeup of their own . This isn't enough coverage to warrant an article on the incident, and I'm highly dubious that the Daily Nous is a good source for WP:BLP material, whether that content is in a biography or an article on an event. Maybe the situation will change, but right now I don't even see grounds to describe the incident within another article, let alone devote a page to it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the inclusion in List of scientific misconduct incidents. I think that Daily Nous is reasonable enough as an RS, but certainly would not have been sifficient as a lone source for including the info about this case in the list. However, there is also an 18-page article in 'Vivarium', written by the Editorial Board (in the same issue of the journal where their three retraction notices appear). That article analyzes the case in great detail. For me that article, rather than the Daily Nous piece, serves as the main justification for including the case in List of scientific misconduct incidents. Nsk92 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Vivarium isn't a secondary source in this instance. I would remove that from the list. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's substantial, but it's also primary, which makes me uncomfortable about relying upon it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete one year in as a professor with many of her publications retracted, but that not getting enough coverage on its own, there is no actual notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:PROF. I did some looking and can make a weak argument for WP:N, but given it's largely a negative BLP (in effect) even in my rather inclusionist view of Wikipedia, I don't think we should have this article.  I'm firm in the opinion it doesn't qualify as an attack page however. "...material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced" doesn't seem to match unless someone knows more about the creator of the article than me. Hobit (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2020 (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.