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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magali Elise Roques[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe the reasons for the previous deletion of the page remain unchanged and entirely valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb04:a20:7500:9ddd:3cbb:2bc4:5382 (talk) 11:28, September 18, 2021 (UTC)

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 23:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per recent discussion, looks way WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF. I don't think the coverage of the plagiarism issues rises to GNG. Comment that WP:ABOUTME may apply here: if kept, the coverage of the plagiarism issue would need to be looked at by neutral editors. The CNRS report is not the exoneration that the article currently implies, and other coverage at Retraction Watch [1] etc is still more negative. (Looking at the history, the coverage was significantly more negative at AfC acceptance, possibly too much so, before whitewashing by an SPA.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:G4 may apply depending on how close this is to the last one (it was recreated three months after deletion). Does not pass WP:NPROF. What we do have is a possible plagiarism scandal that was mainly covered in specialist sources (e.g. [2], CNRS report which rejected plagiarism but did find faults in citations and limited "borrowings", but "not guilty of academic fraud in the sense specified above"). What we end up with is a "I did not beat my spouse" article, in that we have a scandal (possibly mostly refuted) that is the main thrust of the article, which only draws attention to the possibly refuted impropriety. WP:SIGCOV is doubtful and WP:BIO1E applies as this is all around this limited acadmic scandal.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Nothing but an obscure academic scandal. The last paragraph looks like special pleading. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NPROF and the scandal falls under WP:BIO1E. --hroest 21:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only known for the one thing, not for an influential academic career. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I downloaded the CNRS report yesterday from the site given by Eostrix. The names of the report's authors were not given. I found the report to be so lame and feeble that I think that it is unlikely to convince anybody outside CNRS. There was little sign of the intellectual rigor that is sometimes associated with French scholarship in the humanities. The report has not persuaded any of the journals to retract their retractions. I still support deletion of this BLP for the reasons given, but think that further examination of the circumstances of the scandal may be warranted. This may be a case where an untransparent and inadequate institutional response has made a scandal worse. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe: I do not disagree with your assessment on the CNRS report. However further examination should be done by reliable sources outside of Wikipedia, not by Wikipedia itself. With the limited source material and BIO1E issues there is little scope for an article on Wikipedia at this time.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I note this, though. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Delete and salt. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:SIGCOV. The scandal falls under WP:BIO1E.4meter4 (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Opinion is unanimous. It is time that this BLP was put out of its misery and its unfortunate subject left to get on with her life. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2021 (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.