Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Luxembourg

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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)[reply]

University of Luxembourg

edit

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

University of Luxembourg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough reliable sources discuss the subject. Ardenter (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
  • Keep: per above. Atchom (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Suonii180 (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ "Virtual open days for the University of Luxembourg". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. April 9, 2020. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  2. ^ "University of Luxembourg switches to remote teaching for one month". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. October 26, 2020. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  3. ^ Gautier, Nadine (April 11, 2021). "University of Luxembourg will remain closed until the end of the academic year". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  4. ^ "University of Luxembourg among the world's best 250 universities". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. September 3, 2020. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  5. ^ "Shanghai ranking places the University of Luxembourg among the 700 best institutions in the world". RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg. August 18, 2020. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
                  • SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • 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)[reply]

      • … or read the sources cited in this discussion, or indeed do any research at all yourself, in accordance with Wikipedia: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)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Public research university. Silliest nomination I've seen in a long time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Public research university, easily passes WP:GNG. Note the many RTL Télé Lëtzebuerg articles! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment, not that it's needed as there is consensus, but my source analysis is below:
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
#1 Encyclopaedia Britannica Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN A single-sentence mention in an article about the communications of Luxembourg.
#2 RTL Today Question? Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Question? 2 paragraphs + 2 sentences in an article about all higher education institutions in Luxembourg.
#3 University of Luxembourg Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Information about the university, on its own website.
#4 University of Luxembourg Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Information about university governance, on its own website.
#5 University of Luxembourg Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Information about the university rector, on its own website.
#6 RTL Today Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An article about several Luxembourg schools suspending classes.
#7 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about an open day at the University of Luxembourg. Provides details about the university's courses and current teaching arrangements.
#8 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about the University of Luxembourg switching to remote learning. An announcement, with further information about the spread of coronavirus at the university.
#9 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about the temporary closure of the University of Luxembourg. Provides information about the closure of the university and its impact on staff and students.
#10 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about video surveillance at the University of Luxembourg. Reports on concerns raised about video surveilance of student's exams at the university.
#11 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article the University of Luxembourg temporarily deciding not to use video surveillance. With an analysis of the announcement.
#12 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about the University of Luxembourg re-opening. Reporting on the COVID-19 precautions that the university will take.
#13 University of Luxembourg Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN 'Facts' about the university, on its own website.
#14 Times Higher Education Magazine Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An overview of the University of Luxembourg, along with the subjects taught, key statistics, and an independent comparison with other universities.
#15 ShanghaiRanking Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An independent comparison of the University of Luxembourg with other universities, no detailed analysis.
#16 Center for World University Rankings Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An independent comparison of the University of Luxembourg with other universities, no detailed analysis.
#17 Times Higher Education Magazine Duplicate of #14
#18 U.S. News & World Report Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY A detailed independent comparison of the University of Luxembourg with other universities, including individual subject rankings.
#19 RTL Today Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY An article about the University of Luxembourg placing on The Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings 2021. Reports on scores in different categories and comparisons with previous years.
#20 ShanghaiRanking Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN An summary of the site's ranking of the University of Luxembourg since 2017, with no detailed information or analysis.
#21 RTL Today Question? Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Question? An article about the University of Luxembourg placing on the Shanghai ranking annual list. Reports on the University of Luxembourg's scores in previous years but mainly talks about Shanghai ranking.
#22 Center for World University Rankings Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN A summary of the University of Luxembourg's statistics on the site, no detailed information or analysis.
#23 University of Luxembourg Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Information about a notable professor at the University of Luxembourg, on its own website.
#24 World Bank Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Red XN A biography of a notable alumni of the University of Luxembourg.
Total qualifying sources 9 3
There is significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject

SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment - Ardenter: 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 Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):

    • All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria.

    • 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'mere Eugene (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ardenter: 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)[reply]
  • 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)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Luxembourg&oldid=1254352697"