Talk:The Phillips Academy Poll

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it covers a notable organization that has been covered by several reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randyshawn (talk • contribs) 18:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because sufficient citations have been given. The organization is notable, and a significant amount (or the majority of) all coverage of this organization has been covered. The article is neutral and not intended for promotion, as it is similarly written to other pollster pages (under the see also section). Please let me know if any of this concerns you.

Vergilreader (talk)Vergilreader — Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Name ordering of key members

Hey all, I noticed there's been some recent controversy surrounding the ordering of names on this page (specifically Chen and Shieh), almost leading to an edit war earlier this hour. Maybe this would be a great space to discuss! Personally, I believe that when it comes to ordering, it's best to follow the official ordering listed on organizational websites and accounts. Jfkadmirer (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

It seems that there's been some recent edit-warring over redirecting this page to Phillips Academy, or letting it stand. Per the discussion over at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Phillips_Academy, lets come to a consensus here. I personally agree with what User:Horse Eye's Back said there, "However looking at The Phillips Academy Poll it does appear to have received significant coverage since the last AfD and thus a new AfD or merge discussion would be required. Also looks like it might pass WP:GNG this time around." 2600:1000:B14C:BA19:2C94:5D0B:8363:77C7 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Phillips Academy Poll. There was already a consensus to merge the article. We do not need another discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That would be true if the content of the current article and the merged one were the same, but the article has significant coverage which wasn't present when the last discussion occurred so another discussion is required to either merge or delete. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

(patrolling admin) No. The default is to follow pre-existing explicit consensus, not to default to contradicting it pending a new discussion. WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to change consensus to provide support in keeping with our usual policies and guidelines, such as WP:RS and WP:GNG. Draft-space is a perfect place to work on it, then others can help decide if it really is ready-to-go, via WP:DRV. Make sure your sources are newer than the AFD, otherwise you won't convince most editors that you actually have new coverage. DMacks (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@DMacks: Check the edit history and then change your tone. You're either way out of line or you have no idea what is going on here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The proper protocol is for an article which has been deleted through AfD, especially one as recent as this, to be created in draft and go through the AfC process.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The article was not deleted through AfD, it was merged. That protocol is not required either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Same difference. And that's the standard method of re-introducing an article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Again though... Its the standard method but its not required, unless the topic has been salted a new page can be created the day after deletion if there's been significant new coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)