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 no consensus. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Guardino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO Moonboy54 (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient coverage/achievements to pass WP:BIO, as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Silicon Valley Leadership Group; fails WP:BIO as above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:POLITICIAN 2: "2.Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage":

• Gilroy Dispatch 2/21/07 Governor appoints Carl Guardino to State Transportation Commission

Though I haven't tracked it down, the above article suggests there should be additional coverage of his political work in the 90's and early 2000's.

• San Francisco Chronicle 05/13/07 ON THE RECORD / CARL GUARDINO
• LA Times 4/3/11 Carl Guardino wants to improve quality of life in Silicon Valley
• LA Times 3/10/12 Patt Morrison Asks: Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley's big wheel
• San Jose Mercury News's Silicon Beat 1/14/13 Is Silicon Valley Leadership Group’s Carl Guardino headed for Comedy Central?
• Politico 3/24/13 Carl Guardino rallies tech execs for immigration fight
• San Jose Mercury News 7/1/13 Carl Guardino to chair California Transportation Commission
• San Jose Inside 6/15/14 Mayor’s Race Imperils Carl Guardino’s Transportation Tax

A redirect is inappropriate to Silicon Valley Leadership Group as it should just as reasonably go to California Transportation Commission the dual role reflects his importance.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 February 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.

(WP:INDEPTH, btw, is about events not people.)

--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.