Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laboratoire d'Informatique de Paris 6
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,  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,  is met.) In my opinion, better arguments would be needed for deletion. Incredible, by the way, that this article was suggested for  just now, in explicit violation of  rules: "It must not be used for articles PRODed before or discussed on AfD", the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&direction=next&oldid=56688732#LIP6 having already been subject to deletion review. A more appropriate response by experienced editors would be to encourage improvement (see List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_(441%E2%80%93493) | this article for an example of such an approach), rather than just trying to delete an article about an institution that has produced http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Laboratoire+d%27Informatique+de+Paris+6%22 thousands of scientific papers and http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Laboratoire+d'Informatique+de+Paris+6%22 hundreds of books, and that therefore might reasonably be expected to be notable. And indeed, such a response is mandated Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives | by policy: "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" and "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
— User:MyPOV, 08:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:ORG||WP:ORG||WP:PROD||WP:PROD (Wikipedia:Notability)