 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,703 pending submissions waiting for review.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Reviewer tools
|
| Submission declined on 8 October 2024 by Bearcat (talk). 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.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review. |  |
| Submission declined on 20 November 2023 by MaxnaCarta (talk). 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. Declined by MaxnaCarta 13 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 16 April 2023 by Bearcat (talk). 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. Declined by Bearcat 20 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 12 February 2023 by Bearcat (talk). 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. Declined by Bearcat 23 months ago. | |
Comment: While I see that an effort has been made to add more sourcing, it isn't good or WP:GNG-worthy sourcing. It still isn't third-party analytical coverage about him in trustworthy media, but (a) primary sources, (b) university/college student media and podcasts and YouTube videos and Substack newsletters that aren't reliable or GNG-worthy at all, (c) glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite in coverage about something else, and/or interviews in which he's doing the speaking rather than being spoken about, or (d) still the same single WP:BLP1E incident that doesn't make him permanently notable all by itself if it's all he's got for GNG-worthy coverage.
Considering how many times articles about him have been attempted in mainspace and deleted at WP:AFD as being consistently poorly sourced, the sourcing necessary to get this approved at all will have to be very on point, which this sourcing is far from. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not seeing sufficient coverage, especially given the number of times the community has dealt with this subject — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: You haven't added anything that makes a difference compared to last time. This is still based primarily on sources that are not support for notability, such as interviews in which he's doing the speaking and sources that merely quote him as a provider of soundbite.
People do not pass WP:GNG, or get Wikipedia articles, by doing the speaking about other things, people get past GNG by being the subject of analytical coverage being spoken or written by other people — but the only sources present here which actually meet that standard are still all covering him in the context of a single incident that just makes him a WP:BLP1E, and you've still failed to show any evidence that he has notability-building coverage about him in other contexts besides that single incident. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Notability is not established simply by "verifying" facts, it is established by showing that the person has been the subject of third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about the facts.
For example, you cannot stake a person's notability on sources in which he's speaking about other things (such as interviews in which he's answering questions in Q&A format, transcripts of his own speeches, pieces of his own writing, etc.) -- notability requires him to be the subject that other people are speaking or writing about. But the only two sources here that meet that standard at all (Montreal Gazette #4 and Toronto Star #5) are both covering him solely in the context of a single incident which just makes him a WP:BLP1E and does not rise to the level of enduring permanent significance all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Clearly notable, unlike the other 3 attempts this one is reasonably well-sourced and independent of McCullough himself. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: You will need independent reporting about McCullough in order to satisfy notability requirements. All of your current sources appear to be primary sources where McCullough is expressing his own views. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 | An editor has marked this as a promising draft and requests that, should it go unedited for six months, G13 deletion be postponed, either by making a dummy/minor edit to the page, or by improving and submitting it for review. Last edited by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] | contribs) 0 seconds ago. (Update) |  |
| J.J. McCullough | |
|---|---|
 McCullough in 2022 | |
| Personal information | |
| Born | John James McCullough July 17, 1984 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada |
| Occupation | |
| YouTube information | |
| Channels | |
| Years active | 2006–present |
| Genres |
|
| Subscribers |
|
| Total views |
|
Last updated: November 21, 2023 | |
John James Stephen "J.J." McCullough[1] (born July 17, 1984) is a Canadian YouTuber, conservative columnist and writer for The Washington Post and National Review.[2][3][4][5] Described by VICE as an "aspiring right-wing iconoclast"[6] and by the National Post an "unclassifiable journalist,"[7] he is known for his political and social commentary videos.[8][9][10]
- ^ McCullough, J.J. "South Korean culture is truly fascinating". YouTube. Retrieved May 5, 2024.
- ^ Colley, Bill (August 3, 2023). "CANADIAN COLUMNIST DISPARAGES IDAHO TOURIST VIDEO". KLIX News Radio 1310. Retrieved August 21, 2023.
- ^ Beshi, Rubin (July 11, 2023). "Opinion: Canada's Online Streaming Act is dangerous legislation". The Varsity. Retrieved July 12, 2023.
- ^ Symons, Alex (December 30, 2022). Women Comedians in the Digital Age (First ed.). Taylor & Francis. p. 190. ISBN 9781000829464. Retrieved October 12, 2023.
- ^ Renton, David (July 23, 2019). The New Authoritarians: Convergence on the Right (First ed.). Haymarket Books. ISBN 9781642590043. Retrieved October 12, 2023.
- ^ Brown, Drew (April 26, 2017). "We Have Problems With that Washington Post Story About Canadian Democracy". VICE. Retrieved October 12, 2023.
- ^ Cosh, Colby. "Colby Cosh: Tell me lies, ChatGPT, tell me sweet little lies". National Post. Retrieved May 16, 2023.
- ^ Speer, Sean. "'Radical', 'regressive', and 'ignorant': YouTuber J.J. McCullough on the Canadian government's attempt to control the internet". The Hub. Retrieved September 11, 2022.
- ^ Djuric, Mickey (April 10, 2023). "As content creators await the passing of Bill C-11, some say it's still too ambiguous". CTV News. Retrieved April 11, 2023.
- ^ "All 'Aboot' Canadian Holidays". HowStuffWorks. October 10, 2020.