Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Phillips Academy Poll


 * 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 merge to Phillips Academy. Needs a redirect target in the target article. czar 07:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The Phillips Academy Poll

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

completely and utterly non notable poll created by students in a high school with no meaningful in depth coverage. It's only sourced to their student papers, local papers with interviews and not otherwise meaningful in depth coverage (also worth noting, this appears to have been created and tags removed by obvious socks of the previous creator(s).) PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education,  and Massachusetts.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * While the poll has been run by high schoolers, I would argue that the national coverage it has received lends itself to the credibility of the poll. Furthermore, the continual growth of the poll would suggest the wikipedia page is a necessary resource for information on the subject matter. Nicholas D. (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It hasn't received national coverage from major media outlets or significant in-depth coverage - Newsweek isn't reliable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying that "Newsweek isn't reliable" does not discount it being a major publication... What's more, being cited by FiveThirtyEight and the National Republican Congressional Committee lend a significant amount of credibility to this organization. Moreover, it is supported by the Abbot Academy's fund and grant organization. Nicholas D. (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RSP and WP:OSE while you're at it. Your arguments don't hold up. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have looked at both of those pages, actually, and my arguments fit in well with what has already been codified. Newsweek was previously classified as highly reliable, and now it is considered ambiguous (not unreliable, as you have claimed. SEE: RSP). And my citing of other articles is not simply claiming that they exist, but rather that major national institutions and publications have relied upon data gathered by this poll to form their own opinions and create publications. Nicholas D. (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. In retrospect, maybe the Concord Monitor, 7News Boston, and a school newspaper aren't the most nationally notable publications for this argument-- I certainly don't dispute you there. However, NHPR is no small source: in 2017, they reported over 190k weekly page listeners and 450k website views. And, as Nicholas pointed out earlier, the argument here is about notability, and NHPR supports notability. FiveThirtyEight is also highly-respected, especially in the polling world. In 2015, they published an article reporting they had nearly 8 million unique visitors per month. This poll certainly meets notability criteria. Vergilreader (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC) — Vergilreader (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: As someone who declined an earlier version of this page at AfC I am not going to !vote but when I considered it I felt that it was WP:TOOSOON and references available would only improve through the current electoral cycle. Gusfriend (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the content would improve towards the election, but the necessity to have a page w/foundational information and the current popularity of the poll would make keeping the page up highly important. Nicholas D. (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * highly important to who? PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Praxidicae The highly aggressive tone is not appreciated. The same question could be asked of any Wikipedia article, but in this case spe cifically the sudden rise in popularity of the poll makes the creation of a Wikipedia page important as it allows for information about the poll to be disseminated. Nicholas D. (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked a specific question. It's not an unreasonable one. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this poll is credible, the current Wikipedia consensus seems to indicate that other polling organizations that have been covered to a similar degree (Siena College Research Institute, Franklin & Marshall College Poll, or Monmouth University Polling Institute, to name a few) are notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Nicholas D. (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge to Phillips Academy. Like, I don't think that the poll itself is independently notable. But I do think that the poll could be covered within the context of the institution that conducts it. If this is a WP:TOOSOON thing, like suggests, then merging some of the content into the article on the school and then creating a spinoff if/when the poll itself becomes notable seems like it's more than reasonable. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. I stumbled across an article covering this poll, and came to Wikipedia for more information but was appalled that it was in discussion for deletion. Allow me to apply the criteria for the NHPR and WHDH features under WP:SIRS.
 * Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. (The NHPR article is focused on the group's methodology and motivations to create the poll, including opinion from others in the polling industry. The entirety of the WHDH video is dedicated to the group.)
 * Be completely independent of the article subject. (Both these features are from independent journalists.)
 * Meet the standard for being a reliable source. (NHPR is affiliated with NPR and therefore reliable, while WHDH is an ex-CBS and ex-NBC affiliate)
 * Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability. (Both are secondary sources reporting on the poll's stated methodology and leadership).
 * In WP:ORGCRITE, it states multiple independent and reliable sources must be provided, which the two sources I just analyzed have. In another way, Steve Kolceza's Twitter criticism also points toward notability, albeit not in the form of an article, but he represents WBUR, which is also backed by NPR. Sure, the one-line mention in Newsweek isn't in-depth, as Praxidicae noted above, but that doesn't discount the sources I mentioned above that points toward notability.
 * In full disclosure, a friend of mine is a Phillips Academy alumnus, but I have not discussed this poll with him, and this should not in any way discount the points I made, as it is not a particularly small school and would not be uncommon to know someone from there. 50.75.166.40 (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, as no convincing arguments have been made as to why the subject is not notable. The nominator's reasoning seems to have more to do with personal feelings than policy. The fact that the poll is run by high schoolers and has been covered by local news is completely irrelevant, as no policy states that this is grounds for the subject to be deemed "utterly non notable." Keepabortionlegal35 (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

*:I would point to separate articles on Siena College Research Institute vs. Siena College, or Franklin & Marshall College Poll vs. Franklin & Marshall College. The polling apparatus and the school are usually considered distinct entities, since the school page will typically focus specifically on the academic institution. Also, WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not a policy. At least in my view, the potential for greater future notability does not diminish the poll’s already-existent notability as a prominent source for political data. ChristianATurk (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Phillips Academy,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to on June 27. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. For the reasons that I outlined above, I believe that this article and its subject matter have relevance and credibility at the national level. Nicholas D. (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Being cited by national organizations such as Newsweek, FiveThirtyEight, and the National Republican Congressional Committee is no trivial venture. I would imagine, given the wide audiences of these organizations, that their reliance on this poll’s data confers notability, due to the manner in which this poll influences the political landscape…whether you feel this is justified given the high school thing shouldn’t affect WP:Notability. I also agree with Nicholas that Wikipedia consensus indicates other polls with similar levels of source material do meet notability guidelines. ChristianATurk (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: to discuss without sock disruption Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  14:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: I have struck through the comments made by the CU-confirmed sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to Phillips Academy. Here's why. We need multiple references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Since this is an organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which includes WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGDEPTH. ORGIND requires "Independent content" which, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot *rely* only on regurgitating information provided by the organization/school so articles that rely only on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, etc all fail ORGIND. So when you remove this stuff from the article, whatever is left over must meet ORGDEPTH. Also, we don't "combine" references - each reference must meet all the criteria (see WP:SIRS. Let's look at the references (omitting PRIMARY sources):
 * This from NHPR relies entirely on information provided to the reporters by the org itself. The article contains sentences such as "have launched what they believe", "they view the survey as an alternative way", "the students launched what they argue is" - so the journalist is being very careful to ensure this is the students' opinion. The rest of the article discusses one of the polls that the students published - it doesn't discuss the topic organization in any depth (or at all). Fails WP:ORGIND because there's no "Independent Content" about the *organization* and fails WP:ORGDEPTH because there's no in-depth information about the org either.
 * This from WHDH says nothing about the topic org, fails ORGDEPTH
 * This Newsweek reference and this one mentions the topic organization in-passing, only as the name behind the *poll* (which isn't the topic here), nothing in-depth about the org, both fail ORGDEPTH
 * Both this and this from FiveThirtyEight provide no in-depth info on the org, both fail ORGDEPTH
 * This in nrcc.org simply regurgitates the results of one of the polls, no in-depth info about the org, fails ORGDEPTH
 * This in the Phillipian and this also are good in-depth articles but both rely entirely on information provided by the school and the students. There is just no "Independent Content", therefore both fail ORGIND
 * It appears to me that some !voters might assume that getting the name of the organization into a prestigious publication makes the organization notable, but that isn't the case. None of these references meets our criteria. Topic should be redirected.  HighKing++ 19:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.