Jon Asher (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello and thank you for your ongoing work to legitimize the information on Wikipedia. The aricle Jon Asher had been nominated, then wrongfully deleted in the past two months. There are many wikipedia pages that credit the published writer. Since deletion, even prior to deletion, there have been many digital and physical releases printed on CD's, MP3, Vinyl and other forms of media, published and verified with Jon Asher's writing credits in the liners - published by his music publisher, Roc Nation administrated by Warner Chappel Music. Liner notes of each individual published and credited work ever written by Asher can be presented as evidence for this claim. There are several articles online including Billboard, Rolling Stone, Song Facts and many more. This information is more than sufficient to back the credibility and legitimacy of this songwriter to re-instate, then protect this page from another wrongful deletion. Published works have been released through the likes of Colombia Records, Sony Music USA, Sony Music Japan, Sony Music Australia, Universal Music Group, SM Entertainment South Korea with artists and works such as Britney Spears "Mood Ring", The Chainsmokers "Setting Fires", Aaron Carter "Fool's Gold", Taeyeon "I", Stan Walker "Loud", Stan Walker "Light It Up", Bonnie McKee "American Girl", to name a few of his discography works. In the past, we have had communications with wiki volunteers but have had no progressive resolution. The original inquiry was with Ticket#2016110110000091 WRONGFUL DELETION OF ARTICLE - with a volunteer named Stephen Philbrick. )) Keyofgemini (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. AfD was unanimous. Suggest speedy closing this as failing WP:DRVPURPOSE. It also sounds, from the tone of the nom's statement, and use of we, that there's probably an undisclosed WP:COI here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- both AfDs for this article had unanimous consensus to delete. There was no possibility of any other outcome. Reyk _YO! 07:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD was unanimous, thus making the outcome obvious. Lepricavark (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's Sink (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The sink has been described in two national magazines; the Dutch Physics magazine Volume: 81, Editie: 12, Pagina: 41: https://www.ntvn.nl/archief/?q=wasbak+einstein&volume_start=&volume_end= And a monthly historical magazine (Historisch nieuwsblad) November 2015. It was even on the route of the historical bicycle trip of Museum Boerhaave during the Einstein & Friends exhibition. It has quite some local fame and is a noteworthy 'attraction' in Leiden. For this reason I think that it is relevant for wikipedia. I can't see the old article, but perhaps these two sources were not mentioned, because if it was only the newspaper articles then I can see how this could seem irrelevant. Synethos (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Google still has a cache of the mobile version[1] and there is nl:Einsteins wasbak which was translated from here. Einstein's blackboard certainly seems to be notable but Einstein's constant only has one reference and I'm concerned it may, like his sink, be vulnerable at AFD by WP:NOTINHERITED. Thincat (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes as I expected the 'real' sources are not named. So adding those would add notability right? It's not much different from Einstein's blackboard or Einstein's Chair. How does it get decided weather to delete it or not actually? --Synethos (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have temporarily restored the page for DRV. T. Canens (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure the Einstein's Chair article is defensible, because the association is totally without any connection to the science, unlike the Blackboard. I think the relevant rule is is NOTTRIVIA. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't get to the one link provided. If you'd like to e-mail me an (ideally translated) copy of the articles, I'd be willing to take a look to see if they support a strong GNG argument for the topic in question. But as it stands, the AfD's outcome seems both clear and proper. Hobit (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can find them here: http://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~pietrow/files/ntvn.pdf http://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~pietrow/files/hist.pdf Translating them would be a lot of work and don't really have the time at the moment. --Synethos (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wasn't this settled in principle by the AFD for Schrodinger's Catbox? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What AfD was that? I don't see anything obvious that points there. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was supposing the AFD was in a state of quantum superposition being simultaneously closed and never having been opened. Complete clarification is at Schrödinger's cat. Such a result might usefully have broader application. Thincat (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse delete Opinions were anonymous unanimous, conclusion was obvious. gidonb (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused what is anonymous?--Synethos (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was unanimous. The late hour. Thank you, Synethos! gidonb (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes I realize that buy this is why I opened this topic. I believe that the sink is notable due to the two national publications. Would you not agree? If not, what would it need for proper notability? --Synethos (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]