Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:35, 24 September 2010

Notability

As per Misplaced Pages:College and university article guidelines this constituent academic faculty does not appear to meet guidelines for its own article - redirecting to UCL Faculty of Biomedical Sciences. Codf1977 (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This institute has a turnover of £33 million, 500 staff and is internationally famous in its own right. The Misplaced Pages guidelines that you cite clearly state: 'If an institution's faculties, constituent academic colleges, or academic departments are especially notable or significant they may have their own dedicated article'. The UCL Institute of Neurology is clearly within that category. I shall endeavour to find some additional third party citations but the uncontentious facts about this institute should make its notablity very apparent.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The key to it is the word especially - I will wait for those third party sources but absent them it should be merged. Codf1977 (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now added two third party citations. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

They exist is not in doubt but not even close to especially notable. Codf1977 (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? You do not appear to wish to enter into any constructive debate on why this major and famous institute is not notable, merely to keep repeating yourself.

If this article fails the hurdle for notablity, then so do 95%+ of university-related Misplaced Pages pages. There has been a major textbook written about the work of this institute; it has a turnover larger than some entire higher education institutions; it has a long history, both as an independent institution and as a part of UCL; it is home to four of the top twelve most highly-cited authors in neuroscience and behaviour in the world; its work is very closely associated with the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, which is beyond question also the most important institution of its kind in the UK and probably Europe; it is the most important part of the second largest university based neuroscience research grouping in the world etc.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is very simple - provide links to show that this is especially notable other wise this should be redirected. Codf1977 (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Two external links were added on 20 September.

I will repeat the points made before (not one of which you have responded to) and also make a couple more as to why this institute is sufficiently notable:

1. It has a staff of around 500.

2. It has an annual turnover of £33 million.

3. It receives over £19 million per annum in research grants and currently holds over 250 active grants.

4. In the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise almost 100 institute staff were submitted for evaluation and 70% of research was deemed to be internationally competitive or world leading.

5. It occupies around 6,451 sq m of laboratory and office space.

6. Four of the top twelve most highly-cited authors in neuroscience and behaviour in the world are currently based at the institute.

7. It is the most important part of UCL Neuroscience, which is the second largest university-based neuroscience grouping in the world.

8. The institute was an independent organisation for almost five decades before joining UCL, and that independent existence alone justifies an article.

9. The institute operates a joint library with the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, the Rockefeller Medical Library, which is the recognised Library for Neurology within the University of London.

10. The institute has had a major textbook written about its work.

11. The institute is an important part of UCL, a very large and high-profile university variously ranked 4th, 21st and 22nd in the world this year.

12. The work of the institute is very closely associated (and essentially inseperable) with that of the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, which is beyond question also the most important institution of its kind in the UK and probably Europe.Rangoon11 (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the response - points 1- 5, 9, 11 and 12 are of no use in determining if it is especially notable. 6 is a case of inherited. If you can show with independent and reliable sources that others think that 7, 8 and 10 are the case then that might show it is especially notable. Codf1977 (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why points 1- 5, 9, 11 and 12 are - in your opinion - of no use in determining notability. Please also explain why you believe point 6 to be a case of 'inherited' - how do you know that the individuals have not spent their entire careers at the institute?

Point 10 is established by a citation added on 20 September. Point 7 I will add a clearer reference to in the article. Point 8 is an uncontentious fact - the institute was founded in 1950 but did not merge with UCL until 1997. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

1- 5, 9, 11 and 12 are of no use in determining if it is especially notable because, for example having a lab of 6,451 sq m is just a fact.

Point 10 - the ref added only says the book exists - please demonstrate by independent sources that the book is used outside UCL and is indeed major.

Point 8 - you need to demonstrate that the fact is considered especially notable by independent sources.

The key here is that you need to show by independent sources the above are true. Codf1977 (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, so no fact can be used to establish if something is notable. So essentially you are saying that only opinions and things that are not facts can be used to establish notability. I understand.

I have made efforts to discuss the notability of this page with you but you are either unable or unwilling to do so coherently. I am not willing to waste my time discussing this with you any further.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I should also add for the record, since you were so quick to accuse me (wrongly) of having some professional connection with UCL, and since you were so quick to post a message on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Universities accusing me (wrongly) of edit warring, that you have been very actively editing the Aberystwyth University article in the past (it is your third most highly edited page, far more than any other higher education institution). Since you have been targeting other UCL pages in addition to this one as being not notable, perhaps you should disclose what connection you have with Aberystwyth University.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)