Deletion of Magali Elise Roques

Comment: I was very disappointed to see that this had been overturned at DRV.  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  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 , and I still think that this qualifies as an attack page since she's otherwise not notable under  or  and the page serves no other purpose
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G10||WP:G12||WP:BLP1E||WP:NPROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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  (edit: and ) with negative BLP consequences. I support including this case in the List of scientific misconduct incidents (or the humanities equivalent of it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:PSEUDO)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL)

Comment: per my concerns explained at : "I came across this article while clearing , where
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV||WP:RFPP)

Comment: As I said at the DRV: {{tq|I looked up the subject, and I do not see any way that the subject could pass . 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 University of Bern|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 {{u|FlybellFly}} is all I can find. Retraction Watch just points to the ''Daily Nous'' without doing a writeup of their own https://retractionwatch.com/2020/11/14/weekend-reads-hydroxychloroquine-champion-faces-ethics-charges-a-serial-plagiarist-in-philosophy-another-author-reaches-100-retractions/. 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BLP)