- Magali Elise Roques (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- Overturn. Roques has received prestigious awards and is widely published. The extensive amount of her publications which have been retracted because of plagiarism is remarkable in itself and justifies an entry about her in Wikipedia. See discussion here. Melchior2006 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from deleting admin: 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. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse speedy deletion. Paraphrasing what I wrote at the declined arbitration request, the article listed the routine milestones and publications typical of any minor academic. There was no claim of notability satisfying WP:PROF or any other notability guideline. The lead consisted of 55 characters giving the subject's name, birth year and occupation, with another 220 characters describing claims of plagiarism. Given the lack of notability, that means the WP:G10 speedy deletion criterion (attack page) was accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy deletion. I realize that the notability criteria are different in the WP:EN than in the WP:DE. However, it does seem to me that men with similar biographies are included in the WP and women are not. Yes, there is a plagiarism controversy, but that is probably the reason people would be looking her up on the Wikipedia. Thus, it is good for the awards that she has received to be listed as well, so that readers can make their own decisions. I will admit that I am an inclusionist - I fight for inclusion of articles, especially ones about women, as we don't have disk space problems. As an academic I am probably biased, but I feel that many people below the level of Nobel Prize winners need to be included in the WP, just not in epic detail. --WiseWoman (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with the principle to include as many articles about women as possible, it should be noted that her academic integrity has been tarnished due to these retractions. Her dissertation was also in part plagiarized. This means the awards she received and the degree she got might all be cast in doubt. There is an ongoing investigation in the CNRS. We should wait for the results first. FlybellFly (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I can't see the revision and it probably shouldn't be temp-undeleted, but I trust Johnuniq's analysis here and if that's correct then the deletion should be endorsed. It does not preclude someone else writing an article on her where WP:G10 does not apply, though that may be a difficult task. SportingFlyer T·C 15:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If you haven't read the article, I would humbly request that you refrain from commenting on it. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm perfectly able to participate in the discussion. A good closer will note that I have not viewed the article and will downweight my participation accordingly. SportingFlyer T·C 11:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, it's definitely not an attack page, and there's nothing on it that's any worse than what's in this discussion. I could certainly do a temp undelete if one wanted. But it's a otherwise very close to an A7; the only thing that makes it better than my CV is the claim she was a Canada Research Chair, but it's an apparent mistranslation of her having been a postdoc for Claude Panaccio, who was a Canada Research Chair. So ... WilyD 13:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I am also unable to evaluate the article myself, but I'm willing to trust GorillaWarfare and Johnuniq, who have both sufficiently indicated that the page met G10 criteria. If someone wishes to re-create the article, please bring new sources here so the community can evaluate them. CThomas3 (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone needs a copy of the article to evaluate I'm happy to provide it, but per SportingFlyer, given the G10 concerns I would prefer not temporarily undeleting it publicly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse speedy deletion. While I am also for inclusivity and, furthermore, strongly think that the WP:PROF criteria set the bar too high (echoing WiseWoman, we do have unlimited space here for more bios!), I don't think it is just to this scholar or to any female scholar that we create and defend a BLP *only because of* a scandal. The creator clearly created the page to document the scandal (hence WP:G10). It was not a proper bio but a WP:COATRACK. If documenting the scandal was the original intention, then the page should have been titled The Roques Plagiarism Incident. But even then such a page is unwarranted as this single event does not yet satisfy WP:GNG. We currently only have a few retraction notices (which are not independent secondary sources) and one minor coverage in the Daily Nous blog. FlybellFly (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We currently have six retractions from the editors of prominent scholarly journals. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My primary point is that if/when the event becomes notable, then the page should be the Rogues Plagiarism Incident page, not a bio. Doesn't WP:GNG require significant coverage by secondary sources? These retraction notices will be primary sources, no? FlybellFly (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct; the retraction notices certainly don't contribute to establishing her notability. We would need significant coverage of her/the retractions in independent reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Retraction notices are what I referred to below, as primary source sleuthing. Wikipedia should not be doing this. The policy is WP:PSTS. If Wikipedia allowed every/any academic’s bio to list their retractions, it would be a flagrant WP:NPOV failure. Acceptable only if mentioned in a reliable reputable independent secondary source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If academics have their complete works listed, then retractions should also be included. But really only list publications or retractions if they are important in some way. IE if referenced by other writings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse speedy deletion. I am unable to read the deleted article; however, 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 — the Daily Nous post mentioned by FlybellFly is all I can find. Retraction Watch just points to the Daily Nous without doing a writeup of their own [3]. 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'easter (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't endorse, Leave deleted - the article had a single, negative sentence that was well sourced and relevant, it's in no way an attack page - it was largely her CV. G10 very obviously doesn't apply - we're openly tossing around the whole of the issue here without concern. That said, I would call it an A7 - the claim she held a Canada Research Chair is a mistranslation of her postdoc being funded by someone else's Canada Research Chair, leaving a decent CV but nothing of particular note; really, the French equivalent of a run of the mill assistant professor. WilyD 10:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- She's not a post-doc, apparently the original reporting got that wrong. The fact that it *could* easily get that wrong is a hint about her notability, but it appears to be a permanent position, maybe akin to an assistant prof in the US? Hobit (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, CNRS is a permanent position, akin to being an assistant professor in the States. But she was a postdoc, and she was the postdoc of someone with a Canada Research Chair. That got mistranslated into the article as though she had a Canada Research Chair, which would have been a claim of significance that would've prevented A7 deletion. But, it wasn't true, so I'm fine with leaving this deleted as a A7. WilyD 09:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how BLP policy is relevant here. BLP says we need to remove unsourced or poorly-sourced negative information about living people. It certainly doesn't say we need to remove negative information that's verifiable by reference to scholarly journals. BLP is not a whitewasher's charter. It should protect people from unproven allegations, but it certainly shouldn't defend a demonstrable cheater. Overturn G10. She's not a notable person and shouldn't have a standalone article but this doesn't make deletion the appropriate response. The matter should be covered in List of scientific misconduct incidents, and her name should redirect there.—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not mentioned there now, and she's a not terribly high profile academic just doing boring plagarism, so there aren't likely to be any knock on effects. If someone really wants to write something there they might be able to, but I'm very skeptical it merits it. Maybe it'll pick up attention, but this isn't one of the hundred most important instances of academic misconduct. WilyD 13:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Worth noting that the deletion was both for G10 and A7 concerns (I thought I'd added A7 to the deletion rationale but it looks like I just wrote it out instead). I do think G10 applies, but A7 does also apply. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Marshall that at most she deserves an entry in a List of Research Misconduct page. Not List of scientific misconduct incidents, exactly, as it is only for the natural and social sciences. Contrary to Wily, I believe that this case of plagiarism is much worse than many of the incidents already listed in List of scientific misconduct incidents. We're talking about whole paragraphs of copy-and-pasted text from a wide range of sources (multiple authors, multiple outlets including Wikipedia and news articles, even from her own supervisor's PhD dissertation!). Her position is extremely competitive and she was only one of two philosophers selected that year into the CNRS. FlybellFly (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Article aside, we really shouldn't be adding negative information about a BLP to a list of incidents if that person or incident isn't otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 07:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are some "Wow, who gives a shit?" entries on that list too. Things like faking results have real knock-on effects and can be pretty significant; plagarism means you're spinning you wheels and maybe stealing credit, but is almost never import in the big picture. WilyD 09:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just responding to this comment, so the following does not have any import to the current discussion. Many of the listings on that page are single incident minor plagiarism without any independent secondary reporting (e.g., "Ismail Deha Er (Turkey), former Associate Professor of Marine Engineering at Istanbul Technical University, plagiarized vast majority of his paper published at Energy Sources Part A.[334] I. Deha Er simply copied content of a technical report published by MAN Diesel titled "Emission Control Two-Stroke Low-Speed Diesel Engines." Where [334] is just the retraction notice). If your standard holds, then these entries should be deleted from those pages, too. I'll stop commenting on this aspect. FlybellFly (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Request emailed copy of the deleted article, as offered by User:GorillaWarfare. This sounds like a possible case of BLP zealotry, and I would like to have a look please. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too please. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've sent a copy of the deleted article to both of you, via EmailUser. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Received, thanks. “Some think ...”. Bad but not egregious, arguably an unsourced attack, but I think sourceable. It’s a question that I think belonged on the article talk page, to discuss the reliability of sources, and whether it is primary source sleuthing. I note no issue with the bulk of the article, nor with foreign language Wikipedia versions, de.Wikipedia examined. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC). It’s the “accusations of plagiarism” issue already mentioned by the OP and in the discussion linked. A probably non-notable researcher, misidentified as a professor in a source translation, G10 is possibly heavy handed, but I think the article would be deleted at AfD as failing WP:PROF, and I agree with WileyD above. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy Received the article. Certainly not an attack page IMO. Probably fails WP:PROF, but that is an AfD call. Might pass WP:N at this point. I think I'd prefer we not have this article, but that should be a decision made by the community. Hobit (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article, as it stood, definitely failed WP:PROF, and definitely failed WP:N. In neither case was it remotely close. It might be possible to write an article about her that didn't (although I doubt it), but what we had wasn't it. WilyD 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted Although this is not an attack page, and G10 does not apply, A7 would apply, as the prize won has no article and neither does the awarding organisation. Unless secondary sources mention the retractions, I don't think it should be mentioned in those lists of misconduct articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|