Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nomadicghumakkad was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Elric Endersby and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Elric Endersby, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Farley Gwazda! Having an article 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! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Farley Gwazda. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Elric Endersby, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 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) 10:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Farley Gwazda. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Elric Endersby".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 2 September 2022 (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 MurielMary was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Thanks for creating this draft however there is insufficient evidence that the subject meets the criteria for a biography on Wikipedia. Please refer to the notability guidelines for artists.

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Katherine Sherwood and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2022 (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 Hoary was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

We're told: Katherine Sherwood’s work is housed in the permanent collections of [11 institutions] among other public and private collections. Please provide a reference for its inclusion in each of the eleven.

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Katherine Sherwood and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hoary (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on getting my hands citations to demonstrate inclusion in art collections that are not searchable online. Most of these works were added to collections more than 2 decades ago, and evidence is ephemeral, i.e. annual reports, newsletter. Also could simply cite CV as printed in reputable secondary sources? But would prefer to have something more authoritative. Still, the more important major collections/awards do tend to be searchable online, so perhaps simply removing the more less major ones would be a solution? Sherwood's archives from UC Berkeley have yet to be processed, but once they are made available finding ephemeral citations will be possible.

Please let me know what else needs to be done to get this page in order, thank you. Farley Gwazda (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's only now that I'm seeing the message above for the first time. (Tip: To draw somebody's attention to a comment anywhere other than their own user talk page, make sure that in a single edit the comment both (A) links to their user page and (B) is signed.) You seem to have climbed out of your quandary pretty well: every one of the claims ought to be referenced and a few still aren't; but let's leave the latter in for a little time in the hope that they'll eventually be referenced. (If they're not referenced in a matter of months, or if anyone objects, remove them; they can be readded later when those archives have been processed or other "RS" come to light.) As for other things that need(ed) to be done, I removed an "interestingly" because (even though I'd agree on its interestingness) this was what would be called "editorializing" hereabouts. There are things I'd probably phrase differently; but then there are things in "my" articles that you'd probably phrase differently. Anyway, well done on what is now no longer a mere draft! -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Katherine Sherwood. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Conflict of interest is dismayingly and repellently complex and long. Read it, but perhaps only after warming up by reading WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Be sure to follow the recommendations -- and, where payment or a salary is concerned, the requirements -- for divulging COI. Hoary (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Farley Gwazda. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Elric Endersby".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]