100 Hour Board Article on Wikipedia deleted

[Benvolio]

It was recently brought to my attention that the 100 Hour Board article on Wikipedia got deleted this week. One of the admin deleted it once last year, but several readers and former editors rewrote the article, complete with pictures and historical notes from the very first web master (Or web mistress, in this case) back in the mid 1990's. But the same admin deleted it again, and locked the page this time to prevent its recreation.

The admin apparently didn't read the article -- he looked at the picture of the original 100 Hour Board and he thought it was a long article about a cork board on a wall.

Do you think the 100 Hour Board is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry? One of the readers created the article back around 2003, I think, but I thought it was a good article. It had bits of history and even covered some of the controversies with BYUSA and stuff.

If any of you are Wikipedia users and want to email the admin about it, his profile is here.

[Fredjikrang]

How hard is it to get onto Wikipedia? I might join just so I can chew him out. >:D

[Eponine]

Wow! I didn't buy it at first, but I checked for myself, and it's really gone! How crazy is that!? I totally remember reading the wiki article after I discovered the 100 hour board! Why would they delete a harmless article? It makes me sad.

[pgm]

Wikipedia admin-types are so insane about their authority and conformity to them that I generally avoid trying to edit any articles, except to fix blatant spelling/grammatical errors.

I don't see a good reason to delete the article, but I've never seen them change their minds before, even when the decision was stupid.

[Yellow]

Apparently, they declared that it had "no assertion of notability." (See their notability guidelines here.) It's possible that the original article simply didn't demonstrate adequately the nature and scope of the Board. Perhaps a mention of 42,686 visits over the last 30 days, or 20,000+ unique visitors over that time might make a difference. While that's certainly vastly less than the number of visits some other websites receive, it's certainly more than a cork board on the wall. We've answered over 30,000 questions in just the few years since we've gone online, all of which are available and categorized in the archives.

The admin who deleted asserted that it was simply a "notice board." In fact, it was no such thing, as official BYU notices were never posted on the 100 Hour Board, either on the physical board or online. This might not have been clear in the original article, though I doubt it.

Wikipedia types like to see references from external sources. Perhaps these nine articles published in the Daily Universe about the Board might prove of some use. It's also been mentioned 2,740 external blog posts on blogspot alone. That should provide some evidence of notability.

It also might be worth noting that similar organizations such as Yahoo! Answers and Google Answers have complete pages. In fact, while Google Answers certainly comes from a more notable organization, it's worth noting that they were only receiving around 100 questions a day, which is only about three times what the Board averages on a daily basis. A comparison to something such as Google Answers would certainly help the admins see that the Board is not a "notice board."

It's important to recognize when dealing with Wikipedia editors that the Board is not, in fact, the most important organization ever to cross the face of the earth. Over-dramatized professions of shock and dismay really won't get anything done. But if a rational argument is presented for why an article about the Board presents useful information, I don't see why a reasonable discussion couldn't take place. It should be noted that the admin expressed the following opinion a few days ago in response to another article deletion:

The problem is that while most colleges have a plethora of musical and other groups, there is nothing actually encycloapedic about any of the individual groups themselves. I believe a common solution is to have an article on groups within the college, with short non-promotional descriptions of each. I sing in a choir which was the first to have an Association of British Choral Directors conducting scholarship bursary and had a two-page spread in the paper the other day, plus press in the German papers when we went to Dusseldorf; still not actually notable, just a generic choral society.

An article about groups within BYU might certainly include the 100 Hour Board, and that might be a reasonable compromise if there is strong objection to restoring the page.

Wikipedia suggest that discussion about wrongful deletion go on the admin's talk page, which can be found here. Feel free to use any information I've cited above. I'd do it myself, but I really don't have the time for a few days.

[Portia]

Yellow, I think the link on Economic Expert is broken, fyi.

[Yellow]

Hmm.. it works for me... Really, though, it just copied from the original article, so probably doesn't help anything. I'm going to take out that link.

[Portia]

But it didn't work for me in Firefox or IE, and after refreshing.

[Benvolio]

I finally got a response back from the Wikipedia admin, and he reasserted his position that the Board lacks notability. Furthermore, he said that in order to show notability,

You would need to show that it has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial independent coverage in reliable secondary sources.

I don't know if he would consider BYU NewsNet an independent source. The blogspot posts might not be "reliable secondary sources." And I'm not sure if the readership volume matters to him.

I guess my confusion lies in what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. It isn't a traditional encyclopedia, and I thought that was the whole point. It is supposed to be fluid and cover material not available in other sources. I can't think of a better resource for pop culture items or current events. Must everything be confirmed by "multiple non-trivial independent coverage in reliable secondary sources"? If so, why even have Wikipedia? Just buy the Encyclopedia Britannica and be done with it.

[OptimusPrime]

I've seen much less worthy things on Wikipedia...

I just have a few scattered comments, the first being that answers.com still has the wikipedia article up (for now) here, if anyone wants to make a back-up or see it: http://www.answers.com/topic/byu-100-hour-board

Secondly, BYU newsnet seems to be the only source that's done an article on the Board. Would it be possible to get the Daily Herald or SL Tribune to do one? It doesn't seem out of the question and those could certainly be non-trivial secondary sources.

[Fredjikrang]

I agree. It shouldn't be too hard to get into any of the local papers, at least that is my impression from recent experience.

[mabel]

not too hard. even i can do that.

[Benvolio]

An update on the Wikipedia saga:

I'm getting a bit frustrated with the Wikipedia admin. The talk page about the deletion of the Board article was itself deleted two days ago. After emailing that admin, he grudgingly sent me the text of the deleted talk page, but declined to restore it. That admin said it wasn't much of a talk page since I had the only comment. I need not point out that no one else can comment on a deleted page.

We've had a bit of discussion over at the Board Alumni blog and I'm currently drafting a memo to JzG, along with the help of some other Board community members. If anyone is interested in helping, I have the document in Google Docs. I'll send you an invite to collaborate if you have a Google account. Just send me an email or PM.

I don't believe JzG will grant our request. He seems have developed the notion that the Board was just a message board, and is reluctant to change his mind. I expect the next step to be deletion review and/or Wikipedia arbitration. We are essentially writing an open letter which we will probably simultaneously submit and post online.

[Humble Master]

He seems have developed the notion that the Board was just a message board

Maybe he should have read the Wikipedia page he deleted before he deleted it...

Seriously, thanks for all the work you're putting in on this.

[A Mom, but not yours]

Personally liked the bit about it being a cork board on a wall....

[Benvolio]

If anyone is interested, the article will be submitted for deletion review this evening. The talk page already got deleted once, but it's back up again, along with a link to an open letter to Wikipedia by Misaneroth, Duchess, Just Another Cassio, and I. I suppose if you're interested you can sign onto the letter too, though I hadn't thought of it before. If you do want to pipe up about whether the article should stay, do it in the talk page. Just click on the "+" at the top of the page to add a comment.

[Dark Chocolate]

Things that reveal identities of writers current or past are always fun. :)

[361]

I think you should submit it again...

Even if it gets deleted this time, it will still show up on Deletionpedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionpedia

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/

[Laser Jock]

I think you should submit it again...

Even if it gets deleted this time, it will still show up on Deletionpedia....

I'm honestly not sure that it's worth it. We have a couple of articles about us in normal newspapers that we could use to write up a new Wikipedia article that would probably pass the notability criteria. (We could possibly even contact a newspaper or two to get another article, if necessary.) But I think it's okay if we don't have an article, for now. It would take some time to create a version that really did prove notability, and then there would probably be a battle after that.

[361]

I think you should submit it again...

Even if it gets deleted this time, it will still show up on Deletionpedia....

I'm honestly not sure that it's worth it. We have a couple of articles about us in normal newspapers that we could use to write up a new Wikipedia article that would probably pass the notability criteria. (We could possibly even contact a newspaper or two to get another article, if necessary.) But I think it's okay if we don't have an article, for now. It would take some time to create a version that really did prove notability, and then there would probably be a battle after that.

I think you kinda missed the point...