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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Subject has been mentioned in passing by multiple non-primary reliable sources (normally in his leadership roll of the SVLG), but I have not found any reliable sources which give
significant coverage or explore the subject
in-depth. Therefore the subject fails
WP:GNG. However, the subject is the CEO of a notable
organization, which has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Therefore, I support redirecting the article to the article about the organization.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 04:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)reply
In a number of the articles I have posted above he is the subject of the article, not just mentioned in passing. Besides his involvement in SVG he has received substantial coverage as a state appointee.
Another source is:
Richards, Gary. "Local leader Guardino's new gig could give BART plans a boost" McClatchy - Tribune Business News Washington. 14 Feb 2007: 1. via San Jose Mercury News, Calif. syndication 806 words about Guardino and his impact directly about Guardino in a major newspaper.
I listed both INDEPTH & SIGCOV, as both are similar in meaning.
Looking at the Los Angeles Times article provided, I will strike my redirect !vote, and go to Weak keep. The Politico Pro IMHO is more focused on the organization than the subject, as are other articles provided. The Mercury News article appears to be a rather short biography, and not significant coverage (not like that one LA Times article).--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 20:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The coverage listed above by Samuel J. Howard shows that reliable sources over a wide geographic area think he is important. This is not evident from the article, since most of its history and references have been deleted and revdel'ed. If the result is "keep", the article will have to be reconstructed. I will assist with that process. --
MelanieN (
talk) 21:09, 10 March 2015 (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.