Talk:Cy Sherman

Draft space

WikiOriginal-9, MBisanz - The closing admin, MBisanz, at the recent afd has asked that this page have an independent review, potentially in AfC. I have no experience with AfC, and hoped someone else would take the lead. However, at this point, I think the page is stable here and is ready for review. I am going to ask at the AfC helpdesk for guidance moving this page to draft space, getting it reviewed, and, I think, getting it back to article space. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiOriginal-9, MBisanz - Following up on this, I asked at AfC and the user who responded wasn't sure if moving the article to Draft was the correct use of AfC. The merge is finished, so I think the next option is to either do another AfD, send it to DELREV, delete the article as a successful merge, or remove the merge tag and let the article stand. Wikipedia:Merging#Merger as a result of a deletion discussion suggests that it is up to the involved editors to perform a merger as a result of a deletion discussion. Given the disputed deletion and the work that has taken place at this article since the AfD started and since the AfD ended, I do not wish to tag this article as having completed its merger and being ready for deletion. Thus, I think the right thing is to send the AfD to DELREV, but I'm hesitant to do so. @Sandstein: seems to be the most active administrator at DELREV, so I have pinged them for a second opinion.

For clarity, the discussion of this issue has taken place at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_"Cy"_Sherman, User talk:MBisanz/Archive 20#Charles .22Cy.22 Sherman, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 November 4. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Smmurphy, perhaps it's because it's the weekend, but I can't summon the concentration required to find out what your question is.  Sandstein  17:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. The AfD result was merge. WikiOriginal-9 and I disagreed that the article should be deleted and continued working on it. There is not really anything else to merge and I'd like to remove the merge tag from the article, but I feel like doing so might be against the consensus from the AfD. Do you think I should just remove the tag or send it to DELREV or do something else? Thank you. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Smmurphy: I advise you to ask the people who advocated merging in the AfD whether they are now OK with keeping the article. If yes, removing the tag is not a problem.  Sandstein  16:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bozzio:, @CoffeeWithMarkets:, @DGG:, @Lankiveil:, @SwisterTwister:, @Northamerica1000:, (closing admin: @MBisanz:, outside opinion: @Sandstein: keep !votes: @Clarityfiend:, @Barkeep:, @WikiOriginal-9:, @SmokeyJoe:, @Cunard:) I am pinging everyone who advocated merge or delete in the AfD for this article last October at the recommendation of Sandstein (and pinging other involved editors for completeness, sorry for the spam). During and after the AfD, WikiOriginal-9 and I continued to work on this page. At the beginning of the AfD, this was the page. At the end of the AfD, this was the page. You can see it now. I would like to know if there is consensus among you for keeping the article at this point. Thank you, Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to dismiss good-faith efforts. Nevertheless, I have mixed feelings because some of the sources appear to be either looking at things from a 'local interest' side or else might not be that reliable to use for citations (to be specific, Huskernside.com is something I wonder about even if it has a sort of 'official' status). I also would like to see what the other editors think. Quite a few people have commented on all this, after all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The references to huskernside.com and huskers.com could and maybe should be replaced. The recent Brian Christopherson article duplicates much of that material, and might be a good candidate. The local interest issue came up at the AfD and my thoughts were that a number of articles about/discussing Sherman were largely reprinted in papers throughout the country, but usually the articles in Nebraska papers were most complete and best for writing a wikipedia article, so I used them. As an example, of the 80 articles newspapers.com finds about Sherman the month of his death, nearly 60 come from newspapers published outside of Nebraska, spanning from Massachusetts and New York to North Carolina to Arizona to Alaska[1]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• I recommend removing the merge template and keeping the article unmerged per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles "Cy" Sherman:

  *Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources linked by WikiOriginal-9 (talk · contribs). WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E does not apply because the subject died in 1951 and because he is notable for being a newspaperman for nearly 60 years. The obituary in The Lincoln Star provides very substantial coverage about him. The obituary demonstrates Cy Sherman's national impact as a sports editor and sports write:

  In 1936, Cy advanced the idea for the Associated Press members' national poll of top ten college football teams — the poll generally accepted today as designating the national champion.

  He has received coverage in other sources like this article in the Omaha Bee and this article from the Lincoln Evening Journal ("Nationally Known Sports Editor Named to 'Sports Hall of Fame'"). Sherman clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  I oppose a merge to Nebraska Cornhuskers because the sources demonstrate that Cy Sherman's notability is not solely tied to the Nebraska Cornhuskers.

  Cunard (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

  Furthermore, since the AfD closure, the article has been significantly expanded. It would be undue weight to merge the entire article to Nebraska Cornhuskers football, and a partial merge would result in the loss of encyclopedic content. This article therefore should remain a standalone article.

  Cunard (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• I see no consensus to remove the merge tag but also not consensus that the merge should go forward resulting in the article's deletion (one delete !vote from the AfD, CoffeeWithMarkets, still has reservations, while one !keep vote, Cunard, believes the article has improved and continues to support its inclusion as an article, no other comments). Unless someone thinks otherwise and given there seems to be no continued interest one way or another, I will remove the merge tag and let the article stand in about a day. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the tags. Feel free to re-open discussion, of course. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)