Talk:Phillips Academy

The Phillips Academy Poll – proposed deletion

This section seems way too specific and detailed. The institute is only three years old and gets more space in the article than venerable, centuries-old institutions at Phillips. I propose reducing it to one sentence, tops. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Procedural Keep. As discussed up here, this section is a result of an Afd case that resulted in the section being merged into this article. As for the other institutions you're discussing, which ones in particular do you think the Phillips Academy Poll gets more space than? The Addison Gallery of American Art and Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology, for example, are shorter because they have dedicated articles that this page links to. As a solution, perhaps we could choose to lengthen those sections since the Afd means a separate article isn't an option? Although, this was in July of 2022 and part of the justification was WP:TOOSOON. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Talk above shows that the content is really questionable and some of the editors have been blocked in the meantime. So I will go ahead and reduce substantially. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Noted, I added back some relevant information you removed at first (a bit on the rest of the article as well). Belichickoverbrady (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I think your addition was relevant and justifiable. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

KangarooGymnast is editwarring: Please participate in the talk page before simply reverting. The passage in question is very questionable, the users who wrote it were blocked, so don't make the same mistakes they did. --Melchior2006 (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

In what way is the passage questionable? Furthermore, your comment about the previous editors of this entry is entirely trivial. Plenty of content on Wikipedia has been created by blocked users. KangarooGymnast (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The "methodology" section is way too detailed for a general article about the school. The reason the Poll was deleted as its won article was the lacking significance of the content. It merits being *mentioned* in the general article about the school, but the methdology of a poll run by high school students is too specific. The "criticism" subsection is not significant enough to merit its own section, and the long verbatim quote is not interesting enough to justify the quote. The basic gist of the criticism was enough, the way it was before your revert. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The methodology section is an important aspect of the poll. If you're looking for a brief information about the poll, I would assume a reader would want to know how it's conducted. I would say the same with regards to the criticism of the poll. I have no comment as to the reasoning of the poll's deletion since I wasn't editing at the time it was nominated. KangarooGymnast (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Devoting a whole section to this topic seems off considering the article is about the school. Perhaps we can just mention that the school runs the poll in the Overview along with the poll's significance, similar to how the school's newspapers are mentioned? That seems like a natural place to put this info. GuyHimGuy (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No. The section needs to be kept because of the previous merger. See the discussion above your comment. KangarooGymnast (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @KangarooGymnast! I have read that discussion. The section does not need to be kept because of the previous merger. The merger was a result of the afc reviewer determining the topic was not notable enough for a standalone article. Nobody at this point is questioning the poll's notability. However, this article is about Phillips Academy, not its newspaper, not its museums, not any of the programs it sponsors, but the school itself. I think this is what @Melchior2006 was trying to argue as well.

Reducing information regarding the poll to a couple sentences in the Overview would allow it to support the article rather than detract from its focus. GuyHimGuy (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, after rereading the afd discussion, it seems as though most of the users arguing for its existence are socks and/or accounts with few significant edits beyond pages associated with Phillips Academy as pointed out by @Praxidicae last year, which is very interesting. GuyHimGuy (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, though I don't know why you pinged everyone. Of course the page is about the school itself. The poll is conducted by students of the academy, and thereby is directly related to it. I haven't personally seen the Afd discussion so I have no comment with regards to that. The article may be about the school, of course it is, but the poll is undoubtedly relevant to the school and deserves its current section. KangarooGymnast (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

A sock-problem is lurking behind the scenes, here. I like GuyHimGuy's comparision to the school paper. Would we cover the editorial process that goes into publishing the paper? That kind of overdone detail is what is now happening in the "methodology" section, for instance. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't see what would be problematic about that, no. A few sentences about the editorial process of the school paper doesn't seem like an unreasonable addition. But regardless, we're talking about the poll, not the paper. I do agree that there is a sockpuppetry problem, which I'm sure will be addressed. KangarooGymnast (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems we've reached a stalemate, so I don't think any changes can be made in the near future. In the meantime, I'll simply remove the names of the founders since their inclusion is explicitly banned by the project. GuyHimGuy (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's how an Afd works. I don't think that because those articles have been deleted there isn't any encyclopedic value to them. I would suggest keeping them, since it is relevant to the poll about who founded it. KangarooGymnast (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

My reasons for removing the names have nothing to do with the deleted article. We shouldn't put these individuals' names out in the open, especially considering the possibility they could still be minors. GuyHimGuy (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not correct. Shieh is not a minor, so that doesn't apply. See here: [1] Alex Shieh, the 18-year-old chief pollster and co-founder of the Phillips Academy Poll.. This was written about a year ago. KangarooGymnast (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

What does not apply? The possibility of the individuals being minors only amplifies the importance of privacy in my opinion, but the policy does not have anything to do with age. The policy still holds, so both names should be removed. GuyHimGuy (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, his name has been widely disseminated, considering he's a journalist for the Boston Globe. KangarooGymnast (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

KangarooGymnast, you are over-stating his notability. He is apparently a "contributing writer", which means a freelancer and not the same as a staff-writer position. Just this past summer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Shieh has consensus that he was not personally notable enough for an article, and that his only hint of notability was the Philips Poll. DMacks (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

What steps can be taken at this point to address sockpuppetry? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

KangarooGymnast has been CU sock-blocked, including at least one blocked antecedent account that was..."overly enthusiastic" about getting the Poll and associated-individuals' content into various articles. Unless there are any objections or new information in the next 24 hours, I'm going to strike their comments here as evasion (valueless disruption/abuse-of-process). DMacks (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC on The Phillips Academy Poll

Should Phillips Academy Poll have its own section? Additionally, should the names of the founders of the poll be included in the article? Relevant references: WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS, WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#WNTI. GuyHimGuy (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep section and names Per discussion above this Rfc. KangarooGymnast (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I am for removing the kid's name. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep the section per previous discussion up to 25 Dec, about one paragraph in size was fine off consensus between Melchior and I. I'm leaning towards keep on the names as well since there are sources to back it up (here and here). Privacy is always a concern, especially with minors as GuyHimGuy pointed out, but these individuals also agreed to an interview with major media such as the New Yorker and NPR, so I don't think displaying it on this page is particularly worrisome, as long as we comply with the living persons policy. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This version was the consensus before the sock came in. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That pre-sock version was still too extensive; it contained substantial boosterism. I suggest the following text for the entirety of this section on the poll: The Phillips Academy Poll, run by two students, attained national prominence in 2021. The poll’s findings, attained through random digit dialing, reflected demographics in new ways and were welcomed by the international scientific community. Coverage took place in major news media. It was the first public opinion poll to be conducted by high-school students. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with shortening it to this length. This version by Melchior2006 clearly explains what makes the poll significant and relates it to the school without going into details that don't support the main topic (Phillips Academy). I would, however, remove the part stating "The poll’s findings, attained through random digit dialing, reflected demographics in new ways and were welcomed by the international scientific community.", as the poll wasn't referenced by the scientific community and isn't scientific. Once shortened to this length, is it necessary to keep it as its own section though? In my opinion, it would fit naturally under the paragraph regarding the Phillipian. GuyHimGuy (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Even then, their names provide no value to the article considering those individuals aren't notable for anything else significant. If they were, it'd make sense to include their names as a reader would be able to click internal links to find out more about them, but as of now, their names are just extra information. GuyHimGuy (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Your suggestion for making it even shorter sounds good to me. And yes, that means dropping the section heading and integrating the content above, as you propose. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Modifications were made based on what's consistent with the WikiProject Schools article guide listed in the notice. I really hope an experienced editor from that project leaves a comment though so we wouldn't have a back and forth with another sock if/when that user comes back. GuyHimGuy (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Tuition and financial aid charts

I suggest that we keep this chart, but reduce the number of years given. We don't need annual tracking. Every five years is fine. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The table's bulkiness affects readability (WP:NOTDB). GuyHimGuy (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll make the changes then. --Melchior2006 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Paresky Commons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was that the Paresky Commons article should be merged into the Phillips Academy article. Per WP:MERGECLOSE, merger is appropriate because one week has passed since the merger was proposed, only two people responded (both supporting merger), and nobody else chose to weigh in (see WP:SILENCE).

---

Hello, I propose merging Paresky Commons, Andover's dining hall, into the "Facilities" section of Phillips Academy. I don't see anything in the article that establishes general notability (I would be shocked to see any high school dining hall worthy of its own Wikipedia article unless it was an independently notable building later converted into a dining hall), and any non-duplicative interesting material (e.g. architect Charles Platt, Colonial Revival style, LEED Silver certification) can easily be folded into the existing Paresky Commons bullet point on the main article. I do not think that merging will cause any WP:UNDUE issues since Phillips Academy is already one of the longest secondary school articles on Wikipedia. In addition, I do not think merging will cause any article-size issues since Andover is a top-importance school article and the length is reasonable in comparison to Phillips Exeter Academy.

Per WP:PM, I am required to notify the relevant WikiProjects before executing a merge, as Phillips Academy is a B-Class article that "need[s] assistance from uninvolved editor(s) in determining whether to merge the pages." I have done so. I would also ping the the creator of the Paresky Commons page (User:TheBlueGodFathered), but two months after the article was published in February 2022, they were blocked for sockpuppetry; the underlying sock investigation indicated that the socking focused on other Andover-related topics. No other editors have made material contributions to the page since then. Namelessposter (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Go for it, sounds like a very good idea. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I support merging Pesky Commons with the already quite long Phillips Academy article because the Commons article as a standalone has notability issues. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal for The Andover Inn

Hello, I propose merging The Andover Inn into the "Facilities" section of Phillips Academy. Just now, I attempted to refurbish the article to bring it up to standard and establish notability, but I had trouble finding sources to meet WP:GNG, suggesting that merger is appropriate. Most of the secondary sources actually relate to Stowe House, the historic building that previously occupied the Andover Inn site before it was moved to its present location on Bartlet Street. My one point of caution is that this page was created in 2011 by User:Qrsdogg (now @Mark Arsten), a future sysop. The page was created in evident good faith, but no other editors (except me) have made material changes to the page in the 14 years since Mark created it, which raises notability concerns.

The same merger principles from Talk:Phillips Academy#Merger proposal: Paresky Commons apply: the PA article is already quite long (not inappropriate for a top-importance school article), the material worth merging is fairly limited, and there is already some coverage of Stowe House on the main PA article.

As with Paresky Commons, WP:PM requires me to notify the relevant WikiProjects before executing a merge, as Phillips Academy is a B-Class article that "need[s] assistance from uninvolved editor(s) in determining whether to merge the pages." I have notified WikiProject Massachusetts and Mark, although the latter left Wikipedia in 2020. Namelessposter (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Re-circulating merge proposal for watchlist convenience (I made a non-substantive edit to the talk page between posting the original proposal and now). Namelessposter (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)