Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 April 21

Help desk
< April 20	<< Mar | April | May >>	April 22 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 21

01:50:10, 21 April 2017 review of submission by Edpendrag

• Edpendrag (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

Edpendrag (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC) It is evident that this site is unworthy of its inclusion on the Internet and should be removed.

Hello, Ed. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Concerns about the existence of Wikipedia are best addressed to User talk:Jimbo Wales. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

15:26:04, 21 April 2017 review of submission by Senfee

• Senfee (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

I cannot locate the reviewer comments on this page from last September. How can I find them? Were they emailed to me?

Thanks! Senfee (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Senfee. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. If you're talking about Draft:Dorothy K. Burnham, the reviewer's comment appears right above the draft and also appears on your Talk page. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

15:33:00, 21 April 2017 review of submission by Dempseycarroll

• Dempseycarroll (talk · contribs)

Not sure as to why the submission is rejected again as we updated the language/added more sources to the best of our ability? Please, advise. Thank you! Dempseycarroll (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DempseyCarroll. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I assume you're talking about Draft:Dempsey & Carroll. If so, your submission wasn't "rejected again". Quite the opposite -- you recently received a comment saying that a reviewer was ready to accept it for publication, providing you fixed up the referencing (and that reviewer advised you to take a look at WP:Referencing for beginners). I also see that you have ignored a previous comment advising you to remove peacock language from the draft. To this, I'll add that the lengthy listing of "collaborations" is unencyclopedic and should be removed prior to publication of the draft. On a different note, I see that your user name strongly suggests that you are affiliated with the subject of the draft. If you have not already done so, you should read through our conflict-of-interest guideline. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)