Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. McCullough


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  MBisanz  talk 18:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

J. J. McCullough

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a journalist and cartoonist, with no properly sourced indication of passing WP:CREATIVE. This just states that he exists and then shares some of his opinions on things, and seven of the nine references are to either directories or individual samples of his own writing, while one more is to his own self-published Twitter feed — and the one that actually represents a reliable source isn't about him, but merely includes him giving a brief soundbite about a different subject. As always, a person does not get a Wikipedia article by being the bylined author of the sources, or by being glancingly namechecked as a soundbite giver in coverage of other things -- he has to be the subject of coverage written by other people, but he isn't. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a comment that I was considering bringing this here too and then thought that his work for the influential Washington Post as a conservative voice might qualify him for the first part of criterion #1 in WP:JOURNALIST. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If his work for the Washington Post were the subject of coverage in other publications, then sure. Not if the only reference given for it is a primary source directory of his writing for the Washington Post, though. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess I was wondering if the phrase "is regarded" can encompass more than "is discussed by." At any rate, certainly not opposing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: He's written for many influential publishers and has appeared regularly as a conservative commentator on Canadian TV for half a decade. He's also just launched 'TheCanadaGuide.com' which has been used a source on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VivaSlava (talk • contribs) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly none of which is an automatic notability freebie in the absence of any reliable source coverage about him. People get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of media coverage written by other people, not by being the creator of media coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * delete with no prejudice against recreation at some future point, relatively early-career writer/political pundit. He does get written about by others, just not quite enough WP:SIGCOV at this point.  Looks likely that it is just a little WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.