User talk:AllWeKnowOfHeaven

Hi AllWeKnowOfHeaven, Thank you for reviewing my submission for Grigoriy Hansburg. I noticed it was declined due to a perceived lack of reliable sources. I would like to clarify a few points regarding the sources already provided in the draft, as they are among the most authoritative academic references available in Ukraine. The article includes information from: The Ukrainian Musical Encyclopedia (Українська музична енциклопедія): This is a specialized, peer-reviewed academic publication by the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. The Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine (Енциклопедія Сучасної України): This is the highest-level national encyclopedia (similar to Britannica or the Brockhaus), curated by the National Academy of Sciences. Both of these sources are secondary, independent, and provide extensive biographical data on Mr. Ganzburg, which should satisfy the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines for academics and musicologists. Additionally, I have included links to official government/academic documents available online to verify his titles and contributions. Could you please take another look at these specific references? If you feel they need to be formatted differently or if more specific citations are required, I would appreciate your guidance on how to make them more visible to satisfy the verification requirements. Best regards, Deboraverin (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The draft:Grigoriy Hansburg is basically a translation into English of the article on Hansburg in the Ukrainian Wikipedia [1]. Best regards, Deboraverin (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Deboraverin: Thank you for explaining all of this. Those are good sources and based on the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine, I think that the topic is notable. It would improve the article if you could add citations to different sections and paragraphs, these pages explain how: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. Good work and thank you for contributing! AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi AllWeKnowOfHeaven, I've added the links. Please publish the article. Thank you. Deboraverin (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you @Deboraverin: looking at it now. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Deboraverin: I'm 100% certain that this article is notable but I did notice a few issues. Some of the information in the draft is without a source, or cites a source that doesn't actually verify the draft's claims. It would be good if you could edit the draft to ensure that everything has a reliable source. And if you can't find a source for some information, it's ok to just remove that info. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you, I will do this in the next few days. Deboraverin (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have revised the draft according to your instructions. Please publish the article. Deboraverin (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Bluesengineer (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Don Mock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your previous review and for raising the concern regarding significant coverage.

I would like to propose a substantial restructuring of the draft to better reflect the subject’s notability in the context of guitar education rather than primarily as a performing artist.

The revised version will focus on Don Mock’s documented role in the early development of the Guitar Institute of Technology (GIT), his involvement in instructional video production (including the REH instructional series), and his contributions to modern guitar pedagogy through widely distributed instructional publications.

The intention is to present the subject primarily as a historically relevant guitar educator within the development of institutionalized guitar instruction in the United States, rather than as a recording artist.

Before resubmitting, I would appreciate confirmation that this reframing — emphasizing educational impact and institutional role — would be considered an appropriate basis for reassessment under the general notability guideline.

Bluesengineer (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Bluesengineer: The main reason I declined the draft is because most of the sources aren't independent. Most of the references are either the Musicians Institute, Alfred Music, Discogs, and Mock's book. The general notability guideline calls for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to show lasting importance. Focus on changing the references before you resubmit, as that's what'll really help. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @AllWeKnowOfHeavenAllWeKnowOfHeaven,

Revised draft to rely primarily on multiple independent sources with substantial coverage (Earshot Jazz feature, KNKX obituary, Jazz Guitar Today). Institutional and publisher sources have been reduced and are now used only for factual verification.

Thanks for your support. Bluesengineer (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Bluesengineer: thank you! AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @AllWeKnowOfHeaven, that draft has been rejected again. Notability for music has been mentioned by the last reviewer a couple of days ago, but that article refer to a guitar educator primarly.

I've restructured the article again (content and links): can you please have a look in order to understand if i really did an improvement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Don_Mock

Thank you! Bluesengineer (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, many thanks for your review of my draft article. You have flagged " This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". Sorry about this as I am new to Wikipedia article creating. I have reviewed the wiki page on reliable sources and would very much appreciate your guidance on which sources are unreliable. If helpful I have provided my rational below. May thanks again for your help

——

I used the ISBN look up to reference kings books in the article. This led to some references to venders, eg Abe books and Amazon, Berghahn Books. Should these be removed even if they are the only lasting reference on the internet? The majority of Kings books were referenced directly to the publishers webpage - eg Penguin, Harvard University Press, British Museum Press, Mc-Gill-Queen's Univ. Press - I assume this is reliable, and as you can’t purchase them on the keg, not a vendor, but please do say if not.

I also attempted to reference "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable" for his books I used "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article..." eg Newsletter (Museum Ethnographers Group), The Guardian, BBC News, The Standard, Hay festival

For references relating to his carer I used large and creditable webpages where king worked eg British museum and MAA. Finally when referencing Kings "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks" I linked to the appropriate peer review journal eg International Journal of Cultural Property. ~2026-13715-37 (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you! I'm going to take another look at the draft. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Many thanks for reviewing again and making some changes. I have been through once more, checked the references and removed a couple of potential peacock words. JamesOB12 (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It's looking even better @JamesOB12: my next step would be to trim out the Amazon links or anything like that, and see if there are more book reviews that can be added. Also, add a source for 'Early life and education'. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

great! I removed all Amazon links and added an additional book reviews. I’ve also provided a source for kings educational history. ~2026-15029-96 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

My last suggestion is to combine any duplicate references and remove LinkedIn because it's considered unreliable. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

As per your direction, I have removed duplicate references for 1 and 7. The only source I can find for King’s educational history was from LinkedIn so as that’s not sufficiently reliable I’ve removed that section.

I wanted to thank you for the time taken guiding me through this process. As I say, whilst this wasn’t my first edit it was one of my first articles and your guidance will help me create ones on the future. ~2026-15029-96 (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, I am just about to move on to my next article, is there anything else you think this one needs before publishing? JamesOB12 (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi! I saw my submit for approval for Draft: David Nasser was rejected. I was the one who edited and submitted it. I made my best attempts to cite with legitimate sources but I see that was the reason for the rejection. I am new to this, so would you mind shedding some light on where I went wrong? I would love to learn better and make sure I understand how to create a better draft. Thank you! DNOinfo (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @DNOinfo: I declined the draft because the sources you included don't show that the page meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notable people. It would improve the draft if you could find more sources that are sufficiently independent of the subject and that are reliable. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your response.

I would love to do this to make it more credible.

Are you able to guide me on which sources specifically were problematic? I believe there were at least 3-4 which were fully independent and reliable, and all the rest being independent. But I may be misunderstanding the guidelines, and so would love to specific guidance if possible. Thank you so much! DNOinfo (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@DNOinfo: Of course! Sources that interview or were written by the subject aren't independent, and neither are sources that were published by an organization he's affiliated with. Speakerpedia also isn't considered independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Notability explains all this. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your feedback. I have resubmitted after working through the Notability standards and guidelines and believe this submission is better. Appreciate you helping me through this on my first contribution! DNOinfo (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hurricane Zeta ^C 00:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon Hello, AllWeKnowOfHeaven. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Top O' Hill Terrace, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, AllWeKnowOfHeaven. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Top O' Hill Terrace".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The article Cattlemen's Steak House has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No inidication of general notability beyond a geographic region; Wikipedia is not a travel guide (nor a restaurant guide).

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

ButlerBlog (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]