My article wikiperia talk articles for creation/Dams in Amravati District - Part One has not been accepted at this time because References but no in line citations. I had given links in the text ,assuming them to be in line citations,it appears I was mistaken.National Register of Large Dams - 2009, Issued by Central Water Commission,Government of India us a comprehensive document giving details of about 4710 dams . Obviously it would be one and only reference/citation for all the dams. I have gone through the pages on wikipedia inline citations . W Help Foot notes and multiple references to the same foot note etc .Somehow I am not getting the hang of it. I have given the reference in the reference section of my article. As said all the dams have the same reference/citation.Please let me know how I can meet the requirement of in line citations. Pmvelankar (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the draft should not have been declined for that reason. It should have been declined firstly because we already have an article on the topic (which you created and which is currently proposed for deletion) and secondly because the sources you provided don't establish "Dams in Amaravati District" as a notable topic (that's why I proposed the draft for deletion). Inline citations help clarify which source supports which of the draft's statements - for example, which source states Sarabardi dam is an earth-fill dam? Firstly your list is chock-full of typos and it's Sadrabadi, not Sarabardi, and secondly, the PDF linked in the "references" section doesn't discuss dam types anyway. Rather, the source for that fact is this web page. See also WP:Referencing for beginners. But even if you attribute each and every fact meticulously to its source, the basic problem remains that none of your sources discuss the draft's subject, "Dams in Amaravati District", as a collective. There is simply no need whatsoever to split the Maharashtra dams by district. Huon (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Musanage (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)I have added a few citations to the article under revision. Hoping to add a few more sections duly authenticated with appropriate citations before i send it for resubmission. Thank you very much for the guidance for rewriting and resubmission --Musanage (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Musanage[reply]

• The problem with your citations is they don't give enough context for someone to verify it. "Tamil Novel Literature (1968)" isn't really enough for anyone else to be able to go to a library, and confirm that what you've written is in the source. For book sources, you should try and include an ISBN or some equivalent, or some other index that somebody can at least confirm of the book's existence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Afc editors: I am new to Wikipedia, but I am an experienced editor, so I hope to be knowledgeable enough to do some reviewing in the future. Here's my question: I know that articles which have little or no content are normally marked for speedy deletion. Is this true also of articles that are in the Articles for Review queue? Or do you assume that the creator just submitted too soon, and will fix up the article before it gets to the head of the queue? Or is there a way to unsubmit it without deleting? Here's an example: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kinverg —Anne Delong (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• AfC submissions can be tagged with the general criteria for speedy deletion, such as {{db-attack}} for attack pages, {{db-spam}} for blatant and unsalvegable advertising and {{db-copyvio}} for copyright infringements. These should be used for when there is reasonable assumption that no amount of editing could fix the problems. I tend to reserve db-spam sparingly, where the creator's account name closely matches the company name, the article is unreferenced other than its own corporate website, and it is written wholly like a promotion. Other CSD criteria do not apply and should not be used - there is no general criteria for the article you listed, and {{db-short}}, which deals with blank / short articles like this, is an article criteria. There is regular debate about whether old submissions that have sat in a declined state for months or even years should be cleaned up, but consensus has never been reached. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the article is not about the PISG, while the bits that are are cited to non-independent sources. Sionk (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Comments about Sionk's first criticism ["Most of the article is not about the PISG"] on 29 January 2013:

I strongly disagree with the reviewer. The proposed article stub consists of seven sentences. Of these, five are about the society and its activities and two are about the society's chapter in the U. K. Specifically, sentences one, two, three and five are about the society and its activities. Sentence four provides additional details about the conference recently co-sponsored by the society while only sentences six and seven are about the society's chapter in the U. K.

2. Comments about Sionk's second criticism ["The bits that are (about the PISG) are cited to non-independent sources] on 29 January 2013:

Again, I disagree with the reviewer. Of the eight citations, three (the second, third and fourth) are from independent sources. In fact, the second citation is from Linn's, the world's largest-circulation philatelic newspaper. The third and fourth citations are from respected local newspapers in California's Napa Valley.

3. Finally, please compare this proposed Pitcairn Islands Study Group article stub to the article stub which has already been approved for the St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Philatelic Society, an organization which has half of the membership of PISG (roughly 140 versus 280 members). Note that the latter stub contains no references at all.

Please approve the Pitcairn Islands Study Group stub article. The plan is to enlarge upon it after initial approval. Thanks for your assistance.

greatshearwatert (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article is simply that there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources. For instance, in this Napa Valley Register source, the group is mentioned very briefly as a passing mention at the end of the article. What we need, however, is an article in a paper like this that is about the group and directly talks about what it is and what it does. I don't think Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Philatelic Society is a good example of an article to compare against (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) as it doesn't appear to be backed up with reliable sources either, and could be nominated for deletion at any time if no suitable sources were found. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if you have any suggestions or help with this article. I'm not sure which pieces need to be cited and if information from the organizations web page can be used as a source.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Society of Former Agents of the FBI, Inc.

Thanks so much for any help or suggestions you can provide.

Sfsafbi (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In short, everything must cite a reliable source. Right now the "history" and "organizational overview" sections don't cite any sources whatsoever, the source for the first paragraph of the "Foundation" section doesn't say the foundation has "distributed millions of dollars in medical and disaster assistance", of the eight members seven articles don't mention the Society and the eighth doesn't say he was a member (not that Wikipedia articles would be reliable sources in the first place, but if the articles said so and themselves cited sources, we might recycle them for the Society article), and so on. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject; that's clearly not the case here. The organization's own website obviously isn't independent (and neither are some of the current sources); it should be avoided. Basically, if no truly independent source reports a certain fact, it's probably not all that important anyway. Huon (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]