Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Luxembourg


 * 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. (non-admin closure) gobonobo  + c 00:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

University of Luxembourg

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough reliable sources discuss the subject. Ardenter (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Does 'only public research university in the country' ring a bell? Literally anything fitting that description will have sufficient coverage. Like here, or here, or here, or here, or here...I didn't even bother to look at scholarly results. Vaticidalprophet 01:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are those reliable? The first is a review. The second is a passing reference, which doesn't meet notability guidelines. The last two are from a hotel. The third is the only reliable source, That's not multiple reliable secondary sources. Ardenter (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also ISBN 9781857434583 page 1383. There are not the hundreds of years of history to be found documented here, as is the case for a lot of universities, though.  But the OECD does document this institution in depth, giving it four pages discussing its mission and faculties, with some additional commentary, in chapter 4 of ISBN 9789264017795 pages 150 et seq..  Pretty much none of that is in the article at hand, so there seems to be scope to expand this stub. Uncle G (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that 9789264017795 counts as a reliable source, as its a directory. As far as I can tell 9781857434583 is, but it's not in depth enough to make an article. Despite 9781857434583, I still think it doesn't have enough sources to be notable. Ardenter (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * An OECD review of Luxembourg innovation policy, covering this instutition in detail and others in the context of how they fit into that, is not a directory in any shape or form. You are quite obviously reaching, perhaps because the source is in French and you did not actually read it and plucked a plausible sounding reason from thin air. Uncle G (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, I mixed them up while typing them. 9781857434583 is a directory of universities and 9789264017795 was reliable. Ardenter (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing about being a directory that makes a source reliable or not. Some directories are reliable (such as this one), some are unreliable and some are in between. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about reliability as a standard when I discounted X, I was referring to it being a trivial mention. "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement... inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria (i.e. attempt to include every existing item instead of selecting the best, most notable examples), such as databases, archives, directories, dictionaries, bibliographies, certain almanacs." - Notability (Organizations and Companies) Ardenter (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone can read that you said "I don't think that [...] counts as a reliable source, as its a directory". How can you now claim that you weren't taking about reliability when it's there in black and white? How can we have a proper discussion when you deny writing what everyone can see that you wrote? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was using "reliable source" as shorthand for writing "significant independent reliable source"? Ardenter (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you were discounting something based upon its title rather than actually reading that source too, which is an overview of the higher education system in Luxembourg that talks about the Université de Luxembourg. Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: per above. Atchom (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Suonii180 (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. No, we are not going to delete the wiki of the main public university in Luxembourg. JBchrch (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing has inherent notability on Wikipedia, regardless of its status. See Notability (organizations and companies). Ardenter (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as included in this discussion and the article. Clearly passes WP:GNG. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you show those reliable sources? I read the article thoroughly, most citations were from the university itself or from a top universities list, which is not reliable. Only one of the articles posted here would be counted as a reliable source per Wikipedia's policies. Ardenter (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you miss all of the articles from the english language news site of the main broadcaster in Luxembourg? SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But none of those count as sources. Sources need to be more than a passing mention. Most were about a project the university was involved in, and the ones that did mention it did not go into significant detail. None meet the guidelines for reliable sources. Ardenter (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They are definitely reliable sources. Please explain how the RTL Today sources that are already cited in the article, that have the name of the University in the title, and only discuss the university are not significant coverage? SailingInABathTub (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Lets take a look at the first five titles from that link. "Minister of Education Claude Meisch to hold press conference at 2 pm". "How did senior citizens cope with the first months of the pandemic?" "Study confirms that French remains the most required language in Luxembourg". "Scientific topics made accessible in new comic book". "Student for One Day" initiative held in Luxembourg this year". Are these covering the university itself, which is required for significant coverage? Ardenter (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are just presenting me with straw man arguments. My view is clear, let consensus decide the matter. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, but can you tell me how I was strawmanning you? You said these articles were reliable sources with significant coverage, so I gave a sample of them to demonstrate my point that they were only trivial mentions. Ardenter (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. You said "I read the article thoroughly, most citations were from the university itself or from a top universities list, which is not reliable." - You ignored all of the reliable sources in the article.
 * 2. You said "Most were about a project the university was involved in, and the ones that did mention it did not go into significant detail." - You ignored the fact that there are nearly two hundred University of Luxembourg articles on that site - many of which do have significant coverage.
 * 3. I referred you to the sources in the article itself that contained significant coverage (now copied here).    You ignored them again, and instead picked out five that did not contain significant coverage.

 SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the idea I "ignored" reliable sources in the article. I checked all of them. Let's go through every single one.
 * 1 - One sentence in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
 * 2 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
 * 3 - University itself. Not independent, does not meet standards.
 * 4 - University itself. Not independent, does not meet standards.
 * 5 - University itself. Not independent, does not meet standards.
 * 6 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
 * 7 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
 * 8 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
 * 9 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
 * 10 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
 * 11 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
 * 12 - RTL. I'll talk about this later.
 * 13 - University itself. Not independent, does not meet standards.
 * 14 - Rankings. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
 * 15 - Rankings. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
 * 16 - Rankings. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
 * 17 - Rankings. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
 * 18 - Rankings. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
 * 19 - RTL article that does nothing more than say the university was high on these lists. Does not meet standards.
 * 20 - Rankings. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
 * 21 - RTL article that does nothing more than say the university was high on these lists. Does not meet standards.
 * 22 - Rankings. Trivial mention, does not meet standards.
 * 23 - University itself. Not independent, does not meet standards.
 * 24 - Article about a random person who happened to be affiliated with the university. Does not meet standards.
 * None of these demonstrate reliability. Secondly, you said there are two hundred articles about the university on RTL. But that is completely irrelevant if they are trivial. The number of sources does not matter. I read all the pages, and I couldn't find anything that demonstrated notability. Thirdly, I did not "pick out" sources without significant coverage. Those were the first five articles from that search. You also said I ignored notable articles I sent you, but all you did was give me a link that referred me to a sea of articles that met no guidelines. If you wanted me to see the notable articles, tell me their names. Lastly, all the RTL Luxembourg articles. The notability rules for organizations and corporations explicitly state: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." Sources 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are all short articles about the university's COVID-19 restrictions. That does not meet notability requirements. It might be fine for an article about COVID-19 response in Luxembourg, but it does not justify an article about the University of Luxembourg itself. The last one that can be justified is 2, a "Knowledge Bite" about higher education in Luxembourg. But it does not meet those requirements still. It gives basic information about the university from its website and gives a one sentence review. That does not make "it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." Thanks, Ardenter. Ardenter (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * &hellip; or read the sources cited in this discussion, or indeed do any research at all yourself, in accordance with Deletion policy? Thorough efforts to find sources must have failed, which you cannot honestly say if you made no effort at all. Uncle G (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But how does it do so? Significant coverage has not been demonstrated. Ardenter (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Public research university. Silliest nomination I've seen in a long time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing has inherent notability on Wikipedia, regardless of its status. See Notability (organizations and companies). Ardenter (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To counter this, please read WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR! We are building an encyclopaedia to aid knowledge, and being pedantic and "rules"-obsessed does not help that project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What I feel is common sense is removing a poor article which has too little reliable sources to demonstrate its significance or make the article verifiable. Ardenter (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that is not common sense. Notability and verifiability are both attributes of article subjects, rather than of the current form of articles. Please just stop arguing with everyone and look for independent reliable sources yourself, without pre-judging any sources found to necessarily fail our requirements as you have done so far. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I did look for independed reliable sources before submitting the AFD and I have prejudged no sources. Ardenter (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously notable per the "keeps" above, but it would be nice if people recognised that notability is just as obvious for an equivalent university in Africa, Asia or South America. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Public research university, easily passes WP:GNG. Note the many RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg articles! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please find specific articles that meet source requirements? Most of the RTL Tele Letzebuerg articles do not meet requirements for significant coverage. Ardenter (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Following the advice of WP:THREE, the three sources below meet GNG requirements. Enjoy! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * https://today.rtl.lu/your-luxembourg/knowledge-bites/a/1680272.html
 * https://today.rtl.lu/news/luxembourg/a/1620251.html
 * https://today.rtl.lu/news/luxembourg/a/1571771.html
 * Maybe the first, but the second is a three paragraph long article that covers some basic events. I do not think that is enough for significant, reliable coverage. The third meets standards even less, as it mentions the university for less than a third of one sentence. Ardenter (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep  - that this is the only public research university in Luxembourg surely makes it notable. Rollo August (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not. No organization is notable by default. Ardenter (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, not that it's needed as there is consensus, but my source analysis is below:
 * Keep This is a disruptive nomination.  There is plenty of coverage in multiple independent sources, and even if there werent it's important for the encyclopedia to cover universities in small countries and that outweighs other considerations.  Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Three things. Firstly, how is it disruptive? Secondly, I do not believe there has been plenty of coverage. And thirdly, this discussion is about whether the university deserves its own article. If you think it's important to education in Luxembourg, then add it to Education in Luxembourg. Ardenter (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some disagreements with your source analysis:
 * 14/17 and 18 are listed as passing the trivial mention, but by Wikipedia policies they should not pass. Examples of trivial mentions in Notability (Organizations and Companies) state "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in 'best of', 'top 100', 'fastest growing' or similar lists," and "inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria (i.e. attempt to include every existing item instead of selecting the best, most notable examples), such as databases, archives, directories, dictionaries, bibliographies, certain almanacs." THE University Rankings and US News & World Report meet both criteria, as such is not a reliable source.
 * 19 is a bit more of a grey area, but I think it is definitively not significant coverage. All it discusses is the review scores other resources have given the university, and not the university itself. It also is little more than a parrot of trivial mentions.
 * Another thing which applies to both is the counting of "simple listings or compilations, such as... of statistical data." Therefore, 14/17, 18, and 19 are all trivial. Now, I'm going to bring something up that's important to notability. "'Source' on Wikipedia can refer to the work itself, the author of the work, and/or the publisher of the work. For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple". A story from a single news organization (such as AP) reprinted in multiple newspapers (say, in the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel) is still one source (one newspaper article). If multiple journalists at multiple newspapers separately and independently write about the same subject, then each of these unrelated articles should be considered separate sources, even if they are writing about the same event or "story". A series of articles by the same journalist is still treated as one source (one person). The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher). Similarly, a series of books by the same author is one source." All of the RTL articles would be only one source. That's not to mention that they cover one aspect of the university's policy, which (though debatable) is not enough to establish the university as notable. Based on established, clear-cut Wikipedia policy, there is only one counting source of the twenty. Thanks, Ardenter. Ardenter (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, quick question, how do you believe consensus has been reached? The consensus policy states that "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". We're still discussing, so I don't see how this has been reached. Ardenter (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * #14 and #18 - "If the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide, the inclusion counts like any other reliable source". SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Still "inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria (i.e. attempt to include every existing item instead of selecting the best, most notable examples), such as databases, archives, directories, dictionaries, bibliographies, certain almanacs." Ardenter (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - : Please consider that the notability requirement for public schools and universities is WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and only for-profit educational institutions are required to satisfy WP:ORG as commercial organizations, according to Notability (organizations and companies):
 * Here's the description of the WP:GNG notability requirement for significant coverage: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
 * So there are multiple reliable secondary sources where the coverage of the University meets GNG requirements, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, which it turns out is available in English; and the RTL Today news coverage, as well as the Times Higher Ed Ranking piece. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the analysis of multilingualism at this institution on pages 112–113 of ISBN 9781847699381. &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - : Please consider the amount of editors' time that has been wasted by this vexatious nomination. The nomination should be strong enough to stand, without multiple explanations. One bite at the cherry should be enough. Other editors may like to consider how our rubric may be strengthened to prevent this massive misunderstanding. ClemRutter (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as subject has received substantial non-trivial coverage, thus satisfying GNG requirements. WP:AVALANCHE applies as well.  Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as subject has received substantial non-trivial coverage, thus satisfying GNG requirements. WP:AVALANCHE applies as well.  Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2021 (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.