User talk:AStaneikaRsearch: Difference between revisions

Line 61: Line 61:

:For the guideline on reliable sources, see [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]. Happy halloween, [[User:pro-anti-air|pro-anti-air]] ––>[[User talk:pro-anti-air|(talk)]]<–– 23:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

:Draft was [[WP:G15|G15]]ed, if their is not many reliable sources concerning the subject, than perhaps the subject should not be a Wikipedia article, as @[[User:Dan arndt|Dan arndt]] has said above, {{tq|Fails [[WP:ANYBIO]], requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources.}}

:I don’t have anything to say about the reliability of the sources listed, feel free to read [[WP:RS]] or [[WP:ANYBIO]] while waiting. Also, [[WP:RSP]] has a list of sources and how reliable the community has designated them as. Happy halloween, [[User:pro-anti-air|pro-anti-air]] ––>[[User talk:pro-anti-air|(talk)]]<–– 23:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, AStaneikaRsearch, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Adalbertas Staneika, may not conform to some of Wikipedia’s content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Adalbertas Staneika requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it exhibits one or more of the following signs which indicate that the page could only plausibly have been generated by large language models (an “AI chatbot” or other application using such technology) and would have been removed by any reasonable human review:

Communication intended for the user: This may include collaborative communication (e.g., “Here is your Wikipedia article on…”), knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (e.g., “Up to my last training update …”), self-insertion (e.g., “as a large language model”), and phrasal templates (e.g., “Smith was born on [Birth Date].”)
Implausible non-existent references: This may include external links that are dead on arrival, ISBNs with invalid checksums, and unresolvable DOIs. Since humans can make typos and links may suffer from link rot, a single example should not be considered definitive. Editors should use additional methods to verify whether a reference truly does not exist.
Nonsensical citations: This may include citations of incorrect temporality (e.g a source from 2020 being cited for a 2022 event), DOIs that resolve to completely unrelated content (e.g., a paper on a beetle species being cited for a computer science article), and citations that attribute the wrong author or publication.

Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Pages created using them that did not undergo human review may be deleted at any time.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled “Contest this speedy deletion”. This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find creating new encyclopedia content yourself difficult, please share this with other editors at the Teahouse, and they may be able to help. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your legitimate contributions. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:ANYBIO, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

Dan arndt (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AStaneikaRsearch!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we’d love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be reliable sources if the monograph is not enough? There’s not a lot of information out there. I’ve done a lot of research. The monograph supports most of my research thus why it’s my primary source. In finding other qualifying sources, I’d like to know if these examples would count and/or how I could successfully cite them. The monument dedicated to Staneika near Philadelphia exists. I could potentially site a website OR use Google Maps to support its existence. Would that count as a credible source? As an additional example, the Lithuanian Art Museum, M. K. Čiurlionis Museum does have works by A. Staneika on permanent display as they have confirmed with me over correspondence. But, I can’t find anything on their website. What would I need from the museum to cite them as a source? Thank you for help! AStaneikaRsearch (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with…

AStaneikaRsearch (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the guideline on reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Happy halloween, pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 23:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft was G15ed, if their is not many reliable sources concerning the subject, than perhaps the subject should not be a Wikipedia article, as @Dan arndt has said above, Fails WP:ANYBIO, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources.

I don’t have anything to say about the reliability of the sources listed, feel free to read WP:RS or WP:ANYBIO while waiting. Also, WP:RSP has a list of sources and how reliable the community has designated them as. Happy halloween, pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 23:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment