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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McCrindle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article has published two small books (one described on its own website as "Seventy short, heart-warming stories of acts of kindness by strangers with contributions by prominent Australians" and "as featured in Reader's Digest"), and a clutch of "white papers". The subject also has a wide variety of websites, and offers useful analysis to media organisations such as "it costs $somenumber to raise a child now" and "these are the popular baby names this year", which seems regularly to get him cited as a "demographics expert" or similar. This results in a respectable selection of hits - numerically at least - across Google News, Books and Scholar. However, significant coverage in reliable sources of the subject or his work in general, seems to be lacking. Despite efforts to improve and update the article, none of it is properly backed up with independent sources. The article was created, and is maintained by, User:EmilyW which appears to be a single purpose account with a possible conflict of interest - one of McCrindle's company websites lists an Emily W as being a staff member of the company. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Passes WP:CREATIVE. Found sources via Gnews [1] that do provide significant coverage for this person, therefore he passes WP:N. Auseplot (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, there are plenty of sources that say "Mark McCrindle says so-and-so", but I haven't been able to find any that actually talk about McCrindle, as required by WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage about him in Schmidt, Lucinda (13 April 2011), "Profile Mark McCrindle", The Sydney Morning Herald duffbeerforme (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: SMH article is best claim for notability [2], but this is still pretty sketchy overall, no best-sellers. a competent (perhaps stellar) professional, but so is my dentist.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.