Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laboratoire d'Informatique de Paris 6


 * 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   keep. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 17:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Laboratoire d'Informatique de Paris 6

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Single laboratories are rarely notable and this one is no exception. It should perhaps also be noted that in the French system, such a joint CNRS-University lab (UMR) only exists for a limited time (up to 15 years maximum). In any case: No independent sources about the laboratory. Does not meet WP:ORG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep To take these arguments one at a time. "Single laboratories are rarely notable and this one is no exception" is not an argument; it is an assertion backed by no evidence regarding this particular laboratory, or about the notability of laboratories in general, for that matter. The statement about UMRs existing for a maximum of 15 years is clearly false when it comes to this laboratory, established 16 years ago, and giving no signs of disappearing any time soon. Nor is it clear what the relevance of limited lifetime might be to whether there should be an article about an institution or not. Regarding "no independent sources", nothing could be simpler to find for a major laboratory. Such institutions are subject to regular independent evaluation. See the report now cited in the Further Reading section. Finally, WP:ORG is merely a guideline, not policy, and not even mentioned in the Guide to Deletion, so perhaps a little judgement is called for? (And in any case, since there are these independent reports, WP:ORG is met.) In my opinion, better arguments would be needed for deletion. Incredible, by the way, that this article was suggested for WP:PROD just now, in explicit violation of WP:PROD rules: "It must not be used for articles PRODed before or discussed on AfD", the article having already been subject to deletion review. A more appropriate response by experienced editors would be to encourage improvement (see this article for an example of such an approach), rather than just trying to delete an article about an institution that has produced thousands of scientific papers and hundreds of books, and that therefore might reasonably be expected to be notable. And indeed, such a response is mandated  by policy: "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" and "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". --MyPOV (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment My, that's a lot to respond to... I'll follow the order of your arguments. When proposing an article for AfD, I generally start with a short description of the subject and that is indeed not an argument for deletion, nor is it intended as such. You're absolutely right (as attested by the CNRS Annuare des laboratoires) that this lab has now existed for more than the usual 15 years (until recently, that was 12 years). I don't know why, but the organisation of research is changing rapidly in France at this moment. I have struck that comment. Of course, laboratories are regularly evaluated. The AERES had as mission to evaluate every lab in France, large or small (I say "had", because the latest news seems to be that this agency will be abolished). It produced internal evaluation reports that are available on their website. It is debatable in how far this is an independent source as we see that here in WP, but whatever may be the case, it doesn't establish notability. You claim that it "nothing could be simpler" than finding independent sources for a major lab like this, but don't produce any. If you object against WP:ORG being used here, I'm fine with just using WP:GNG, which is not met either. As for the previous PROD, this, too, is debatable. There was indeed a previous AfD, but it applied to another article that was speedily deleted for being a copyvio, so the AfD did not run its normal course. A DRV was not really necessary after such a CSD, I think, but again, whatever may be the case, we're now here at AfD. As for the GS links that you provide: the hits on GS are not all articles and none of them seems to be about this lab. The "hundreds of books" translate for me to 94 results, most of them book chapters contributed by LIP6 authors to edited books. Again, none of this is about this lab. In short, I still see no evidence at all that this lab meets our notability requirements. --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Kindly explain how a public report, commissioned by an agency fully independent of the laboratory, and furthermore produced by independent reviewers (as opposed to, say, the agency's own in-house reviewers), does not establish notability. Sure, if the report had been silent regarding the laboratory's significance, that would be one thing. But it said: "Sa notoriété scientifique nationale et européenne est globalement très bonne" ("Its national and international scientific reputation is overall very good"). This is the very definition of notability. This is also why, incidentally, the hundreds of books and thousands of scientific papers produced by the lab are pertinent for the discussion here. Sure, they do not establish notability, and I never made that claim. What they are, however, is a sign that the lab might well be notable, and that the appropriate action would be to look for the documentation of that notability. Coming back to the question of the independent source, here, again, is an assertion without any evidence to back it up: "It is debatable in how far this is an independent source." The AERES was established as an AAI, or "Autorité administrative indépendante", meaning "independent administrative authority", and this is reflected in its statement of founding principles, the first of which is Independence. It is independent of the Ministry of Education and Research, and it is independent of the two institutions that control the laboratory, UPMC and the CNRS, and of course it is fully independent of the laboratory itself. This can be verified by looking at the text of the presidential decree Décret n°2006-1334 du 3 novembre 2006, which establishes the agency. If there is evidence to the contrary, it should be presented here. Incidentally, in my opinion, the new government would prefer to replace AERES with a less independent agency, which is a factor in its announcement that it intends to abolish AERES. But raising the possible abolishment of AERES in this discussion is a red herring, just like the 15 year issue that was raised above. It is a rhetorical means to cast uncertainty and doubt, by association, on the notability of the lab, while in fact not having anything to do with Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Here is another statement that is backed up by no evidence and that is false: that the AERES produces "internal evaluation reports". Exactly the opposite is true. These evaluations are of no value internally (i.e. to AERES). And while they are certainly of value to the laboratories being evaluated (which are external to AERES), they are emphatically not limited to that use. The future of a research laboratory is a matter of public policy, and these reports are commissioned for public consumption, as stated among the objectives of AERES: to "provide civil society with reliable and transparent information about the activities of higher education and research institutions". Finally, regarding WP:PROD, the following statement is also a red herring: "There was indeed a previous AfD, but it applied to another article that was speedily deleted for being a copyvio, so the AfD did not run its normal course." While it is true that there was a prior article that was deleted, the relevant point is about this present article, in very much the form it is today, which was deleted and then restored. --MyPOV (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The AERES produced reports on any laboratory in France, no matter how large or small. Does this mean that you think ALL of those labs are notable? And a more constructive approach would be to give a few of those simple-to-find sources. Instead of all this arguing about PROD rules and such, come up with some good sources and I'll withdraw the nom and we can save everybody's time here and be done with it. --Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The stated reason for nominating this article for deletion was: "No independent sources about the laboratory." I have identified a very easily located independent source, the AERES, that produced a nine page report about the laboratory. The objection to the AERES then was: "It is debatable in how far this is an independent source", without providing any evidence about why this would be debatable. I have demonstrated, I believe conclusively, that the AERES is indeed an independent source (and the authors of the report even more so). Now there is a move to shift the terms of the debate to something along the lines of whether every laboratory written about by this particular independent source is notable simply because this source writes about it. Let's just be clear here that this is a new issue, and not the one that was the basis for nominating this article for deletion. Furthermore, we do not need to answer the question for all laboratories in order to know whether this laboratory is notable. An independent source has said about this laboratory that it has a good national and international scientific reputation (see the quote cited in my previous comment). It is confirming what we should already have suspected, given the hundreds of books and thousands of scientific articles produced by the laboratory. What more does it take for a laboratory to be notable, under Wikipedia policy, if not a good international scientific reputation attested to by an independent secondary source? --MyPOV (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Much more indeed. See WP:GNG. If it's so simple, then why is this AERES report the only thing that you can come up with? --Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure how to respond to vague handwaving towards policy documents. What are the arguments? Where is the evidence? As best I can tell, the current argument is that AERES reports say about all laboratories, large and small, that they have good international reputations. But even looking at this one report, we can see that it differentiates between the international impact of some teams (the RO team, for instance, on page 7) and the lack of visibility of others (the ACASA team is an example, on page 8). No evidence has been presented here, just a generalized fear, to back up the slippery slope argument that if we were to allow an article on LIP6 we would have to allow an article on every French lab. To come back to the original objection that was raised about this article, "No independent sources about the laboratory"; this has been conclusively rebutted. I'm not sure why there's an attempt to move the goalposts now, to ask for yet more documentation. Everything that was asked for has been provided. --MyPOV (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC) 15:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment In short, the AERES report is the only source that you can come up with. I'm happy to leave it to the closing admin to decide whether an internal agency document is a reliable secondary source. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment In what sense is the AERES report an "internal agency document"? Of what possible use would such a report be to AERES internally? Is the suggestion that AERES evaluates laboratories for its own pleasure? There is a failure here to engage the evidence, provided above, which is that these reports are public documents whose role is, among other things, to "provide civil society with reliable and transparent information about the activities of higher education and research institutions". In what sense is the AERES report not reliable? No evidence has been presented here to back up this implication. In what sense is the AERES report not a secondary source? The agency's methodology, explained on its website, is to review primary sources, which are documents and other information presented to it by the laboratory, and reach its conclusions on that basis. Arguments, please. Evidence, please. The closing admin needs these in order to come to a sound decision. --MyPOV (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * An AERES report is written by a committee that visits the lab to be evaluated, talks with the people there. Based on that visit and on the activity report prepared by the evaluated lab the final AERES report is drafted. At the "president's conference", the presidents of these committees grade the different labs on a scale from A+, A, B, to C, basing themselves on the different reports. C grades almost invariably result in a lab being closed down. In recent years, the same goes for B grades. Only labs that score "excellent" on most criteria (A or A+) are maintained. Do you think that this is enough (and correct) information for the closing admin? --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above does indeed seem to be evidence of some kind, but it needs to be put in the context of a coherent argument. Is it being used to argue that the AERES report is an "internal agency report"? If so, how does it show this? Is it being used to argue that the AERES report is not a "reliable secondary source"? Again, how? Furthermore, what is the provenance of this information? --MyPOV (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment To summarize the lengthy exchange above, in my opinion the article did indeed need to cite at least one source that would make clear why the subject of the article, the laboratory, is notable, and this has now been done, even if the article could still be further improved with more or better sources. Again in my opinion, this outcome could have been easily achieved by following Wikipedia policy, " [c]onsider[ing] whether the article could be improved rather than deleted", and adding the  cleanup tag. Instead, this article was first proposed for deletion (also ignoring Wikipedia policy, since the article's deletion had been discussed before and a nearly identical version of the article had been deleted and restored), and then, when the proposal was removed with the comment "Kindly advise on sources", the article was promptly sent to AfD. Following the addition of the source, the editor who nominated this article for deletion has insinuated in various ways that the source is unsatisfactory, but without, in my opinion, making a case backed by convincing argument or evidence. For example, the editor implies that having only one source is grounds for deleting the article, by writing: "why is this [...] report the only thing that you can come up with?" But there is no hard and fast requirement concerning a number of sources, and one can be sufficient (if perhaps not ideal) if it is a good source. That is a question for discussion and debate, but we have not been able to have that debate here. Another example concerns whether the source is properly a secondary source, as I believe it is. The editor who wishes to delete this article implies that a report by an independent agency is not a secondary source, perhaps tainted by interactions between the report's authors and the subject of the report. Again, we could have a reasoned discussion on this question, but none has been forthcoming. I ask that the article not be deleted and that discussions on how to improve the article take place on its talk page. --MyPOV (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Sigh. You really like wikilawyering, do you? The AERES sends a group of experts to a lab. They examine its production, organization, how much grants they got, etc. and based upon that information produce a report. To me, that's almost the very definition of a primary source. I may be wrong and the closing admin may agree with you and close this as a keep. But if I were you, who apparently feel very strongly that this article should be kept, I would not take the risk that the closing admin is going to agree that this is a primary source and that the article should be deleted. Given that you claim that it is simple to find good sources on this lab, I really fail to understand why you don't just come up with some, it really is in the interest of your position. In addition, that would save us a lot of discussion here and we could get this closed soonest. Or have you perhaps been unable to find any other sources? --Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment To address three points raised:
 * Primary versus secondary sources: Here on page 5 of the AERES report is a list of the primary sources that were evaluated by the independent reviewers: "rapport d’activité à 4 ans, mise à jour au 1.1.2008, présentation des projets, copie des transparents, fiches des démos, plan de formation, fiches individuelles des chercheurs..." ("quadrennial activity report, updated as of January 1st, 2008, project presentations, copies of slides, training plan, individual researcher forms, ..."). When the AERES report states that the laboratory's "national and international scientific reputation is overall very good", it is acting as a secondary source with regards to these primary sources. This is not undermined by the report acting as a primary source in other ways, for instance when it says, also on page 5: "La qualité des documents fournis [...] était très bonne" ("The documents that were provided were of very good quality"). It is not at all unusual for a source to be a secondary source for some things while at the same time being a primary source for others. For example, a biographer does not become a primary source simply because she meets with her subject. She remains a secondary source for assessments, based upon her archival research, like "he was a major innovator" even though she might also make some primary source assessments, based upon her own direct observation, such as: "he has a pleasant manner". Similarly, newspaper and magazine stories are often used to establish notability in Wikipedia, even though reporters see things and talk to people, and produce a mix of secondary and primary assessments. To come back to the current case, the independent reviewers were not first-hand witnesses to the laboratory's national and international scientific reputation. Those first-hand witnesses are the laboratory's own scientists and their peers who read their scientific papers and hear their presentations at conferences. The AERES report's independent reviewers' assessment of the laboratory's reputation is second hand, based upon the documents mentioned above.
 * Number of sources: The criterion for depth of coverage for organizations is: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Examples of coverage that is not substantial include "sources that simply report meeting times", "brief announcements of mergers or sales", and the like. By any measure, an independent report devoted purely to assessing the quality of an organization qualifies as "substantial". One source is absolutely sufficient to establish notability. Of course the article could be improved through the addition of other sources, but that is another question.
 * Wikilawyering: This happens when there are good and obvious reasons not to stick to the precise letter of Wikipedia policy, but someone is nonetheless a stickler for the rules. One can tell that wikilawyering is occurring because it is easy to explain why, in that particular case, the standard procedures shouldn't be strictly followed. So far, we have seen no explanation about why normal practice should not have been followed. It would seem that the only justification is that the editor who put this article into AfD simply didn't wish to follow clear and simple guidelines, such as: "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted". If it is "wikilawyering" to object to such obvious violations, it's not clear how Wikipedia's well thought out policies can be enforced at all.
 * --MyPOV (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the distinction between primary and secondary. If the AERES committee would read all those articles and then write a synthesis about the scientific content (in other words, a review article), that would be a secondary source. Instead, these publications are their "raw data" about the productivity of this lab. Hence, this is a primary source. It's like doing an experiment in chemistry: your measurements are your data, your article with your conclusions drawn from them is a primary source. I find it telling that you keep spending lots of time to post large walls of text instead of using the same time to come up with some easy to find sources and be done with this... I think we're turning in circles now here, so I won't react to further postings from you any more and will await other !votes and/or the decision of the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I will not attempt to meet requirements that are not there. The requirement is substantial coverage in a reliable independent secondary source. Above, I have shown, through specific references to Wikipedia policy and through evidence about AERES and quotes from the report (sorry if this has been lengthy), that the AERES report is in fact substantial, reliable, and independent. To see that it is indeed a secondary source, we can look at how secondary sources are described in Wikipedia policy on the question: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." Check. The AERES report does not produce the science or the laboratory's resulting international reputation; it is at least one step away, analyzing reports and other documentary evidence about these things and providing the thinking of the independent reviewers on the quality of the laboratory. "It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Check. It is an analysis of exactly such primary sources provided by the laboratory. To be clear, the "raw data" was not a pile of scientific papers. The primary sources consisted of the following: "quadrennial activity report, updated as of January 1st, 2008, project presentations, copies of slides, training plan, individual researcher forms, ...". Continuing with the definition of secondary sources for Wikipedia: "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources." In this case, the secondary source is an independent third-party source. All the better. "They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research." Check. The AERES report absolutely relies upon the primary sources and analyzes and evaluates them. "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review." This is what I was explaining above. In this case, the report is a secondary source when it evaluates the primary sources and says that the international reputation of the laboratory is good, which is what makes the laboratory notable. It is a primary source when it says that that the documents furnished by the laboratory were of good quality, because this detail is something that the independent evaluators see first hand. --MyPOV (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There's no case for deletion as our editing policy would be to merge into the parent institution, which is the foremost university in France. The institution is known by a variety of names and abbreviations.  The French language wiki has a much larger article and we should follow their lead as they will be more able to understand and use French language sources. Warden (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The problem is that the this article does not indicate the actual notability of this laboratory. It is notable, however, and it needs someone who knows French to work on it.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment @I am One of Many, it would be helpful if you could indicate why this is notable and how it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. @Warden: unfortunately, the -indeed larger- French article has no sources apart from the lab's homepage. --Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We do have a number of laboratory articles like this one MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, Laboratoire d'Informatique de Grenoble, LaSIGE, Virginia Bioinformatics Institute, The Computer and Automation Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and Institute for Physical Research. Many need a lot of work.  As I see it, the notability of these labs comes from their designation as important research laboratories by the universities and governments that sponsor them and the published research they produce.  I'm not altogether happy about the justification I just gave because I think it may be too broad, but I would like to think about it for a few days.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the strongest of arguments... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking about it, but in this case I think comparisons between a number of similar articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) may ultimately be an important part of the argument.  :-) --I am One of Many (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that @I am One of Many is addressing the claim that was advanced as a basis for deleting this article: "Single laboratories are rarely notable and this one is no exception." The fact that LIP6 is part of a larger class of notable individual laboratories is pertinent in this context. One cannot very well argue that single laboratories are rarely notable and at the same time imply that comparison to other notable single laboratories is somehow off topic. Unless the editor wishes to strike that part of the original claim. --MyPOV (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Secret account 03:28, 18 March 2013 (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.