Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.The reason left by Pythoncoder was:
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of LLMs to write articles from scratch. In addition, LLM-generated articles usually have multiple quality issues, to include:
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:Juan Fernando Herrera Ramos 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.
Hello, Jfer2334!
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! —pythoncoder (talk|contribs)03:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.The reasons left by Anachronist were:
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 cited sources consist of interviews of the subject, quotations of the subject, or trivial mentions of the subject, but not independent, significant coverage of the subject. Read WP:Golden Rule. Do it now. It's a short, easy read that explains exactly the kind of sources reviewers look for, and none of the sources here qualify. We'd like to see at least three such sources.
Furthermore, the draft contains vapid LLM-generated output emphasizing name-dropping of publications instead of summarizing what the actual coverage is ("work has appeared in...", "has been cited in...", and similar instances). This is one reason we disallow LLM authorship of drafts.
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 it after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Juan Fernando Herrera Ramos 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.
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, SomeoneDreaming, left the following feedback:
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, RangersRus, left the following feedback:
Latest comment: 5 hours ago13 comments2 people in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, Ktkvtsh, left the following feedback:
Hi Ktkvtsh. Thank you for reviewing the draft. Before I make further changes or resubmit it, could you please clarify which of the existing sources you believe do not satisfy the requirement for significant, reliable, independent secondary coverage? In particular, I would appreciate your assessment of the Storm Media profile, the La Tribuna profile, and the El Mundo article, all of which contain substantial coverage of the subject. I want to understand what specifically is still missing rather than resubmitting without addressing the issue. Thank you.
Hi Jfer2334. Thank you for asking. The issue is not that every source is unreliable, but that the draft does not yet contain multiple sources meeting all parts of WP:BASIC.
The Storm Media article is the strongest source and appears to provide biographical coverage. The La Tribuna article focuses on your scholarship experience and work with Becas para Hondureños, but it relies largely on information about your own experience and activities rather than independent analysis of your career. The El Mundo article summarizes your geopolitical analysis and conclusions; it covers your views, but it does not independently examine you or your work. The Proceso Digital and Radio Taiwan International articles have the same limitation. The remaining sources primarily cover the football tournament and only mention or quote you in connection with that event.
These sources can verify information in the draft, but verification and notability are separate requirements. What is still needed is additional in-depth coverage in reliable sources that independently discuss your career, work or impact, rather than articles based mainly on your statements, published analysis or participation in an event. The sources do not need to be in English. I hope this clarifies the reason for the decline. Ktkvtsh(talk)04:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Ktkvtsh. Thank you, that clarification was very helpful. I realized there is another La Tribuna article from November 2025 that was not included in the draft. Unlike the La Tribuna source currently cited, this article is specifically about my journalism, international publication record and geopolitical work, rather than my scholarship experience or statements on a particular issue. Would this be the type of independent in-depth coverage of my career/work that you were referring to?
Hi Jfer2334. This article is closer to the type of coverage I was referring to because it focuses on your journalism and career. However, I would not consider it enough to resolve the notability concern.
The same or substantially similar material appears in Once Noticias, including the same claims and framing. The wording is also promotional, with claims such as being among the most influential voices in geopolitical analysis, but it does not provide independent evaluation or attribution for those claims. This suggests the material was syndicated or supplied rather than independently reported.
Soarticle may help verify parts of your publication record, but what is still needed is independently (not by the subject) written and reported coverage that examines your career or impact rather than repeating promotional material or summarizing your own work. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Ktkvtsh(talk)05:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the clarification. I just wanted to clarify one point regarding the duplicated coverage. I did not write or provide that article to either outlet. The piece was written by a journalist and was subsequently echoed or republished by another outlet, which is a fairly common practice among Honduran media. I understand that this means the two versions should not be treated as two intellectually independent sources, but I wanted to clarify that the duplication was not the result of material being supplied by me.
I understand your broader point regarding notability. I will continue working on my journalism and other initiatives, and if one or two reliable media outlets in Honduras, Taiwan, or elsewhere independently publish substantial coverage examining my career, work, or impact, I will add those sources and resubmit the draft. Thank you for taking the time to explain what would be needed. Jfer2334 (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I understand that duplicated publication does not constitute a second independent source. Since you have been very helpful in explaining how the sources are being assessed, could I also ask about this separate La Tribuna article from March 31, 2026?
This is a different article from the duplicated “Los ojos del mundo puestos en Honduras” piece. I found it while looking for other articles that might address the lack of independent coverage. It discusses my journalism, publication record, areas of analysis, and professional work from Taiwan.
Thank you! Since you previously identified the Storm Media profile as the strongest source and said that it appears to provide biographical coverage, and you would give this separate La Tribuna article weight as an independent source, would those two sources together be sufficient to address the WP:BASIC concern? Or could I ask how many comparable independent sources you would consider appropriate before I resubmit the draft? I would prefer to wait know if the sourcing is sufficiently strong rather than resubmit prematurely and go through another decline. Jfer2334 (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would resubmit and see what another reviewer says. I say potentially. I don’t usually review something more than once. It’s also very rare that someone successfully gets an article about them self published. Good luck. Ktkvtsh(talk)00:20, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I work hard! And I have a big project announcement that could generate coverage, but I will listen to your advice and submit now since the project still has some time before being completely ready.
