Talk:UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology

Notability

As per Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

We are trying to find out if this Third level university department is especially notable, having lab space of 6,451 sq m does not help in that cause, all I have been asking from you is very simple independent sources showing that others outside UCL think this is especially notable, you have not provided them. Please re-read what I posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities, the only person who I accused of edit warring was the IP editor - was that you ? I did post a COI template message on your Talk page about connections to UCL as your contributions suggested a link. As for my edits to Aberystwyth University, I have no personal or professional connection to that or any other university page I have edited on WP - if you care to actually look at the edits made to the page that will become clear, you may also like to look at my contributions to University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee and it's constituent schools, or to Talk:Kingston University (more edits there than to Aberystwyth University). If you don't want to provide the links to show this is especially notable, then it is likely to get redirected. Codf1977 (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss possible conflict of interest in terms of editing behavior. Do not "name names", etc. Editing behavior is the issue. Fred Talk 10:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion from Rangoon11 talkpage copied below for completeness

Either provide the ref's as per Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines or this is going to end up at AfD Codf1977 (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I entered two third-party citations on 20 September, straight after you originally tagged the page as not being notable. One of the links is to the Brain Research Trust, a independent charity. I quote from their site 'Since it was founded in 1971, the BRT has been supporting University College London’s Institute of Neurology (IoN), one of the world’s leading centres for neurological research.'

I will repeat again the uncontentious and undisputed facts about the institute:

*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

As I have noted before, point 8 alone justifies an article. The institute was in existence for five decades before merging with UCL, and that independent existence justifies an article. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to show that by using reliable Sources that are independent of UCL. Point 8 does not justify it, after many commercial mergers and acquisition pages are merged. 11:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you have completely failed to respond in any detail to my comments. Regarding point 8, firstly this is not a company but a higher education institution. Secondly, if the article was deleted the history of the institute would be lost from Wikipedia, since it would be inappropriate to add such detail to either the University College London or the UCL Faculty of Biomedical Sciences articles. Thirdly, company articles are not always merged following a merger, takeover or other change of corporate structue, it very much depends on the circumstance, see Cadbury plc, Abbey National, Rolls-Royce Limited, Imperial Chemical Industries, BTR plc, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, Pilkington, The BOC Group, Asda, British Energy, Lattice Group and many others.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As a further point, please can we keep discussion on the topic on the Talk:UCL Institute of Neurology page so that others can see the full talk history on this topic, particularly as you are so keen to post messages about the article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. Thanks.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It is you are missing the point, WP is build not on truth but on the principle of verifiability and without any indication from independent and reiliable sources none of that counts for anything. so let me make it very clear and simple, there is no need to list a UCL PR list - who else, independent of UCL or any funding body, thinks that this institute is especially notable or significant and provide links to show it. Codf1977 (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I will quote, again, from the web site of the Brain Research Trust, an independent charity (one of the citations added on 20 September which you have chosen to ignore): 'Since it was founded in 1971, the BRT has been supporting University College London’s Institute of Neurology (IoN), one of the world’s leading centres for neurological research.'Rangoon11 (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean this, they part fund the institute, they are in no way independent to judge if they are especially notable or significant. Codf1977 (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Brain Research Trust is an independent charity, it is not a part of UCL and it funds research wherever it believes that its resources will achieve the greatest impact. It is hardly surprising that it chooses to fund research at the institute, since it believes that it is 'one of the world’s leading centres for neurological research'. I think you are confusing cause and effect. If the Brain Research Trust received money from the institute you may have a point, the reality is in fact the opposite.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not independent, it clearly has something to gain by promoting the research it funds, and there is no indication that text from the charities website is reliable Codf1977 (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand what a charity is? A charity does not exist for 'gain' for itself, but to fund charitable activities. The Brain Research Trust could fund research at any number of universities if it chose, it chooses to fund research at the Institute of Neurology because it believes that the institute is 'one of the world’s leading centres for neurological research'. It should also be noted that charities in the UK are heavily regulated by the Charity Commission for England and Wales.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that no charity has to promote it self ? - they have a clear link to the institute and therefore can not be called independent. But if that is all you have got then it is clear they are not especially notable or significant and this page should be merged and re-directed. Codf1977 (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why should I keep discussing this with you when you do not engage properly with the points that I make, and as soon as one of your arguments is defeated you simply move on to another one? Your main interest appears to be wasting my time rather than actually having a rational discussion.

The charity gives funding to the institute, it is under no obligation to do so. It could provide funding to any university. It gives funding to the institute purely because it believes that that is a good use of its resources. It is under no obligation to state that the institute is 'one of the world’s leading centres for neurological research'. It is not paid by the institute to say that, it is not controlled by the institute, it is an independent charity funded from various sources, regulated by the Charities Commission and which funds research at various institutions.

Here is another quote, from ALS Research: 'The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery is one of only three MNDA care centres in London. This clinic covers a population of over 7 million, it sees over 200 patient episodes per year. The hospital is closely associated in its work with The UCL Institute of Neurology, and in combination they form a national and international centre at Queen Square for teaching, training and research in neurology and allied clinical and basic neurosciences.' [[1]].Rangoon11 (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not moving on to other arguments, my point has always been there is lack of independent reliable sources to show that this institute is especially notable or significant. The Brain Research Trust is not independent, it has a finical relationship with the institute, ALS Research likewise do not appear to be independent, if you look at the page header it lists them as "Participants" implying that they take part in ALS Research's research - what you need to show is people totally unconnected to the institute or UCL think that the institute is especially notable or significant. Codf1977 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

They are only not independent in your view. You seem unable to understand the nature of the relationship between the Brain Research Trust and the institute, which is that the Brain Research Trust gives money to the institute to conduct research. The Brain Research Trust does not receive money from the institute. I give money to Tesco when I buy things in their shops, am I therefore not independent of them? I also pay taxes to the British government. Am I therefore not independent of any British public sector organisations?

ALS is a research foundation based in the Netherlands which is independent of UCL and the institute. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is another quote, from the publisher Wiley: 'The world-renowned National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery and UCL Institute of Neurology, based in Queen Square, London, have an international reputation for training, research and patient care. Research at both institutions leads developments in translational medicine that are transforming the treatment of neurological disease'[[2]]Rangoon11 (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In this context is key, the Brain Research Trust funds work carried out by the institute, the Brain Research Trust will naturally want to show the groups that give it money that it spends that money well, so therefore it has a COI in relation to how it describes anyone who it gives money to. I can't say for sure that ALS is not independent, however being listed on there website as a Participant strongly implies a formal link between the two, can you provide anything that implies that is not the case ?

As for the "Neurology: A Queen Square Textbook" - are you being serious - how can a book written by people who work at the institute be in any way independent ? Anticipating you next reply, the publishers wish to sell copies of the book so anything they say is also not independent and reliable. Codf1977 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Brain Research Trust has funded research at the institute for many years, it would only do so if it believed that it was a good use of its funds. The charity is independent of the institute, a financial relationship between two parties does not mean that those parties are not independent. The Brain Research Trust gives money to the institute, not the other way round. It is under no obligation to provide funding to the institute and is under no obligation to describe the institute as 'one of the world’s leading centres for neurological research'. By that bizarre logic no entity in the world would be indepedent, since every organisation has financial relationships with other organisations.

The Brain Research Trust is in any case regulated by the Charity Commission. It must therefore be very careful about avoiding conflicts of interest, acting properly, using its funds responsibly and explaining its activities correctly.

ALS is a research foundation based in the Netherlands. Just like the Brain Research Trust it is independent of UCL and the institute. It is under no financial or other obligation to state that 'The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery is one of only three MNDA care centres in London. This clinic covers a population of over 7 million, it sees over 200 patient episodes per year. The hospital is closely associated in its work with The UCL Institute of Neurology, and in combination they form a national and international centre at Queen Square for teaching, training and research in neurology and allied clinical and basic neurosciences.'

Regarding the textbook, firstly a major publisher like Wiley would not even publish a book on the activities of an institute were it not notable. Secondly, not all of the authors of the book work at the institute. Thridly, Wiley is under no obligation, financial or otherwise, to make the statement that 'The world-renowned National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery and UCL Institute of Neurology, based in Queen Square, London, have an international reputation for training, research and patient care. Research at both institutions leads developments in translational medicine that are transforming the treatment neurological disease'. Wiley is a very well established and respected publisher, it also has its own reputation to protect and will not describe an institute in such terms on its website unless it truly believes it.

Here is yet another quote, from the Independent newspaper: 'Along with the nearby Institute of Neurology, it is major international centre for treatment, research and training' [3]Rangoon11 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)