Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYU 100 Hour Board


 * 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 delete. --Core desat 06:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

BYU 100 Hour Board

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was originally speedy deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability was present, corroborated by mainstream press sources listed at the DRV. Still, weak delete, for notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 15:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Campus organizations are not notable Corpx 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I generally agree, but affiliation with an academic institution does not render an organization not noteworthy per se. For example, U. Penn's Language Log, Cornell's Legal Information Institute, U. Buffalo/Syracuse library catalog list Autocat, or U. of Waikato's NZNOG for New Zealand ISP's. In each of those cases, the organization is noteworthy because its influence outside the university. Likewise, only 11% of the 100 Hour Board readership attends BYU, and 73% of unique views to the website originate outside of Utah. Most readers and many writers for the 100 Hour Board are not BYU students. See the open letter referenced in Speedy delete review. Peter 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I did not see any mainstream press sources at the DRV. BYU-related sources don't count as evidence of notability.  I could not find the "mention" alleged in the local paper, either. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is at least one independent source in The Daily Herald, a small newspaper unaffiliated with BYU. Unfortunately, that publication's online archives do not go back to 2000, the date of the article, so I cannot link to it. I also realize that a single print reference is probably insufficient evidence of notability, but the article does exist. If I manage to find an online copy I will post it later. Peter 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you. The problem is that if the Daily Herald only mentions the board rather than discussing it, it does not provide a source that can be used to write the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article covered two or three websites, explaining what they were about. One was the 100 Hour Board. It's not the strongest coverage, but it did cover Board rather than merely cite to it. Peter 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete campus organizations are generally not notable and I see no exception for this one; plenty of campuses and campus groups have a help group, speakers bureau, whatever that have gotten some local attention; doesn't make the notable. Carlossuarez46 21:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that campus organizations are not generally notable; however, see comment above regarding other notable organizations affiliated with universities. I'm not entirely convinced the 100 Hour Board meets the burden of proof, but it should be noted that its sphere of influence is considerable greater than "local attention." Peter 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, if unwillingly. I think the case can be made that the 100 Hour Board is notable. It seems like a BYU-based answer to the Internet Oracle. It has an international readership that stretches beyond the BYU campus. The problem is verifiability: even in the open letter, there are no independent reliable sources provided. Quoting the article: "In 2006, the 100 Hour Board began talks with BYU NewsNet, the university's news organization. The mission and goals of these two organizations were more in harmony, so the 100 Hour Board moved again to its present home [on NewsNet]. The Daily Universe, the BYU student newspaper, also began a regular column on its opinion page with select questions and answers from the 100 Hour Board." Neither BYU NewsNet or the Daily Universe are indepedent of the 100 Hour Board, and as a result, the articles there must be disqualified when considering the coverage for notability purposes. That said, my vote will swing to a keep if sources outside of the BYU news service can be found. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 13:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see any independant reliable sources? Only stuff from BYU itself... -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per clear verifiability concerns and lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources independent of the school itself. Heather 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (note change of position below)- Let me preface my rationale with the disclosure that I was a contributor to the article. I also agree that the 100 Hour Board is not unquestionably notable -- I think it is a close case. However, I support keeping it. My reasons for voting "keep" are below; supporting evidence may be found in the open letter from the Speedy Delete review.
 * The 100 Hour Board is often cited by Internet sources, including Wikipedia itself. The Wikipedia article served a useful function to inform readers about the context, validity, and possible biases of the Board as a source.
 * While its original affiliation with BYU was a close relationship, the Board has existed largely independently for several years. The content of the forum still includes campus-related topics, but both readership and content are increasingly divorced from BYU. Thus, the alternative of including a section about the 100 Hour Board in the general BYU article may be less logical than maintaining a separate article.
 * The 100 Hour Board is extremely unusual in its role as an open forum at an authoritative religious institution. Consequently, it is one of the few sources of open discussion of topics related to BYU or the Mormon Church. The Board is frequently cited as a source in other Internet fora that discuss Mormonism. I think this unique role contributes to the Board's notability. Peter 15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia notability guidelines say "topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  As far as I can see, there's just 1 media mention in there and its a trivial mention, adding no notability to the topic.  Corpx 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment nothing you just said establishes notability. Your first bulletin is rather odd, trying to establish notability by referencing it's own wikipedia article?  *shakes head* -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 15:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not being more clear. I would also support delete if that were the case. The Wikipedia articles I referred to are different from the Board's own article. Here are two such examples. Additionally, a quick web search pulled up citations from or articles about the 100 Hour Board on Boxxet.com, Technometria, Mecworks, QDnow, and Provo Pulse. And for what it's worth, the 100 Hour Board now shows up as a source on Google News Alerts. While not constituting notability per se, I think those references are at least evidence of notability. Peter 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blogs dont count as reliable sources. WP:RS explains what makes a reliable source.  Corpx 16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)These are all arguments that the board should be notable, rather than arguments that it actually is notable. We're looking for evidence that other people have considered the board a subject that they need to cover before determining it needs to be covered in WP. At a very minimum, notability means that some newspaper or magazine editor at a publication outside of BYU has decided that xe needs to expend resources covering the board or that some publisher has decided it needs to spend money publishing a book about it.  In short, we don't determine what is notable, we let other people do that for us.  That way, we don't need to make subjective judgments about what is "worthy" of coverage and praise/insult you, your girlfriend, your mother, your mother's dog, etc.  If you (I noticed that the author of the open letter to Wikipedia on the board's website was signed by Forpeterssake) can get those other people to give your organization coverage, more power to you and I'm sure an uninvolved editor will write an article on it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are valid criticisms. I agree that the functional arguments I presented above are alone insufficient to merit notability. I thought the Speedy Delete was a procedural violation, which is why I originally contested it, but I'm perfectly satisfied if the article doesn't meet AfD criteria. My zeal in opposing the Speedy Delete hasn't blinded me from the fact that there are few outside sources. In fact, I may change my mind on the "keep" vote. I just don't want the article deleted solely because "all campus organizations are not noteworthy" or "it's only cited in its own Wikipedia article." In the case of campus affiliation, I think that is an imprecise and faulty criterion for deletion. In the case of citing the Wikipedia article, I wanted to point out that there were additional citations. The third-party sources I have been able to find are probably insufficient, but I at least wanted to add them to the evaluation. Peter 18:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Peter's well put and thorough argument. -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You mean an argument that doesn't establish any reliable 3rd party sources?, and tries to cite it's own wikipedia article for notability? -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 15:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable student website, no evidence that anybody uninvolved is actually interested, no reliable independent sources, and God alone knows why we undeleted it to bring it here. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Process, my friend. Process. -Peter 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, does not pass inclusion guidelines for notability. Does seem a little silly to have DRV'd this only to delete it once more, but I guess them's the breaks. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Position change - I did some searches on Lexis for articles on the 100 Hour Board and only turned up the same articles I already referrenced. At this point I don't expect to find any other major coverage, so the burden of proof probably isn't met. I think the Wikipedia policy on notability is overly narrow, but that is irrelant in the current discussion. Though I would like to see the article maintained, I must conclude that it doesn't meet the current criteria for notability. I stringently maintain that the speedy delete was wholly innappropriate, and I don't regret contesting it. But I must regretfully reverse my vote from "keep" to "delete". As Arkyan says, them's the breaks. Unless someone else comes forward with some third-party sources, this AfD can probably wrap up. -Peter 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You should strike out your earlier position then. Corpx 01:54, 11 July 2007 (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.