716:- 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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
588:
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
Knowledge (XXG) article." In the case of campus affiliation, I think that is an imprecise and faulty criterion for deletion. In the case of citing the Knowledge (XXG) 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.
314:
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. β
587:
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
175:
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
552:
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
Knowledge (XXG) on the board's website was signed by Forpeterssake) can get those other people to give your organization coverage,
417:
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
313:
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 . The Daily
Universe, the BYU
413:
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
290:
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
402:- 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
223:
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
547:
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
439:
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.
277:
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.
409:
The 100 Hour Board is often cited by
Internet sources, including Knowledge (XXG) itself. The Knowledge (XXG) article served a useful function to inform readers about the context, validity, and possible biases of the Board as a
482:
259:
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.
548:
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
478:
I apologize for not being more clear. I would also support delete if that were the case. The
Knowledge (XXG) articles I referred to are different from the Board's own article. Here are
194:
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.
665:
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.
233:
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.
452:
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* --
335:
115:
697:
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.
309:. It has an international readership that stretches beyond the BYU campus. The problem is verifiability: even in the open letter, there are no
88:
83:
92:
75:
486:
17:
614:
569:
245:
206:
505:. And for what it's worth, the 100 Hour Board now shows up as a source on Google News Alerts. While not constituting notability
305:, 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
720:
says, them's the breaks. Unless someone else comes forward with some third-party sources, this AfD can probably wrap up. -
573:
249:
210:
756:
36:
164:
126:, finding an assertion of notability was present, corroborated by mainstream press sources listed at the DRV. Still,
414:
section about the 100 Hour Board in the general BYU article may be less logical than maintaining a separate article.
741:
724:
708:
687:
678:
653:
620:
592:
578:
526:
513:
469:
444:
422:
391:
371:
345:
325:
295:
282:
263:
254:
228:
215:
184:
147:
134:
57:
755:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
498:
155:
I generally agree, but affiliation with an academic institution does not render an organization not noteworthy
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
224:
evidence of notability, but the article does exist. If I manage to find an online copy I will post it later.
79:
403:
177:
565:
241:
202:
71:
63:
703:
549:
485:. Additionally, a quick web search pulled up citations from or articles about the 100 Hour Board on
494:
279:
52:
721:
684:
609:
589:
510:
419:
292:
260:
225:
181:
490:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
436:
168:
558:
321:
234:
195:
554:
306:
633:
544:
519:
384:
479:
49:
380:
673:
667:
637:
453:
388:
355:
160:
109:
717:
698:
342:
316:
354:
I don't see any independant reliable sources? Only stuff from BYU itself... --
738:
523:
441:
144:
131:
418:
Mormonism. I think this unique role contributes to the Board's notability.
502:
636:?, and tries to cite it's own wikipedia article for notability? --
172:
749:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
509:, I think those references are at least evidence of notability.
123:
105:
101:
97:
130:, for notability concerns, pending other opinions.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
122:This was originally speedy deleted under CSD A7.
759:). No further edits should be made to this page.
632:You mean an argument that doesn't establish any
539:notable, rather than arguments that it actually
383:and lack of multiple, non-trivial references in
8:
535:(ec)These are all arguments that the board
167:, U. Buffalo/Syracuse library catalog list
543:notable. We're looking for evidence that
522:explains what makes a reliable source.
334:: This debate has been included in the
518:Blogs dont count as reliable sources.
612:'s well put and thorough argument. --
143:Campus organizations are not notable
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
180:referenced in Speedy delete review.
387:independent of the school itself.
553:more power to you and I'm sure an
336:list of Websites-related deletions
24:
291:greater than "local attention."
176:Board are not BYU students. See
406:from the Speedy Delete review.
400:(note change of position below)
683:Process, my friend. Process. -
1:
737:your earlier position then.
557:will write an article on it.
616:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
165:Legal Information Institute
776:
634:reliable 3rd party sources
742:01:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
725:01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
709:22:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
688:01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
679:22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
654:15:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
621:15:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
593:18:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
579:17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
527:16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
514:16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
470:15:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
445:15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
423:15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
392:01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
296:13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
264:18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
255:16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
229:13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
159:. For example, U. Penn's
58:06:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
752:Please do not modify it.
372:18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
346:13:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
326:01:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
283:21:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
216:21:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
185:17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
148:17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
135:15:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
381:verifiability concerns
171:, or U. of Waikato's
550:subjective judgments
72:BYU 100 Hour Board
64:BYU 100 Hour Board
677:
577:
555:uninvolved editor
348:
339:
253:
214:
767:
754:
671:
650:
647:
644:
641:
619:
617:
563:
466:
463:
460:
457:
435:Knowledge (XXG)
385:reliable sources
368:
365:
362:
359:
340:
330:
239:
200:
113:
95:
55:
34:
775:
774:
770:
769:
768:
766:
765:
764:
763:
757:deletion review
750:
714:Position change
648:
645:
642:
639:
615:
613:
464:
461:
458:
455:
404:the open letter
366:
363:
360:
357:
343:John Vandenberg
307:Internet Oracle
178:the open letter
86:
70:
67:
53:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
773:
771:
762:
761:
746:
745:
744:
728:
727:
711:
692:
691:
690:
659:
658:
657:
656:
624:
623:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
582:
581:
532:
531:
530:
529:
516:
473:
472:
447:
428:
427:
426:
425:
415:
411:
394:
374:
349:
328:
300:
299:
298:
280:Carlossuarez46
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
189:
188:
187:
124:DRV overturned
120:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
772:
760:
758:
753:
747:
743:
740:
736:
732:
731:
730:
729:
726:
723:
719:
715:
712:
710:
707:
706:
702:
701:
696:
693:
689:
686:
682:
681:
680:
675:
670:
669:
664:
661:
660:
655:
652:
651:
635:
631:
628:
627:
626:
625:
622:
618:
611:
607:
604:
603:
594:
591:
586:
585:
584:
583:
580:
575:
571:
567:
562:
561:
556:
551:
546:
542:
538:
534:
533:
528:
525:
521:
517:
515:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
477:
476:
475:
474:
471:
468:
467:
451:
448:
446:
443:
438:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
424:
421:
416:
412:
408:
407:
405:
401:
398:
395:
393:
390:
386:
382:
378:
375:
373:
370:
369:
353:
350:
347:
344:
337:
333:
329:
327:
323:
319:
318:
312:
308:
304:
301:
297:
294:
289:
286:
285:
284:
281:
276:
273:
265:
262:
258:
257:
256:
251:
247:
243:
238:
237:
232:
231:
230:
227:
222:
219:
218:
217:
212:
208:
204:
199:
198:
193:
190:
186:
183:
179:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
151:
150:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:
137:
136:
133:
129:
125:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
751:
748:
734:
713:
704:
699:
694:
666:
662:
638:
629:
605:
559:
545:other people
540:
536:
506:
491:Technometria
454:
449:
399:
396:
376:
356:
351:
331:
315:
310:
302:
287:
274:
235:
220:
196:
191:
163:, Cornell's
161:Language Log
156:
152:
140:
127:
121:
45:
43:
31:
28:
733:You should
560:ObiterDicta
503:Provo Pulse
311:independent
303:Weak delete
236:ObiterDicta
197:ObiterDicta
128:weak delete
735:strike out
487:Boxxet.com
437:notability
379:per clear
566:pleadings
537:should be
242:pleadings
203:pleadings
495:Mecworks
483:examples
480:two such
116:View log
630:Comment
574:appeals
450:Comment
410:source.
389:Heather
288:Comment
250:appeals
221:Comment
211:appeals
169:Autocat
153:Comment
89:protect
84:history
718:Arkyan
695:Delete
663:Delete
570:errata
507:per se
501:, and
377:Delete
352:Delete
317:C.Fred
275:Delete
246:errata
207:errata
192:Delete
157:per se
141:Delete
93:delete
46:delete
739:Corpx
722:Peter
685:Peter
674:Help!
610:Peter
590:Peter
524:Corpx
520:WP:RS
511:Peter
499:QDnow
442:Corpx
420:Peter
293:Peter
261:Peter
226:Peter
182:Peter
173:NZNOG
145:Corpx
132:Xoloz
110:views
102:watch
98:links
54:desat
16:<
608:per
606:Keep
397:Keep
332:Note
322:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
50:Core
48:. --
705:ΚΙΙ΄
700:ΙΚΠΊ
668:Guy
341:--
338:.
114:β (
646:ji
643:mn
640:su
572:β’
568:β’
564:(
541:is
497:,
493:,
489:,
462:ji
459:mn
456:su
364:ji
361:mn
358:su
324:)
248:β’
244:β’
240:(
209:β’
205:β’
201:(
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
676:)
672:(
649:m
576:)
465:m
367:m
320:(
252:)
213:)
118:)
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.