Deletion of Danny Sullivan (technologist) (2nd nomination)

Comment: Hi, I'm a novice at Wikipedia, so I apologize if I make mistakes on the decision criteria or markup. But I am a Distinguished Engineer at Google, and I would definitely classify Danny Sullivan as notable in the field of search. I'm happy to attest that people within Google take Danny's journalistic coverage quite seriously. I would think the USA Today and New York Times articles would both count toward notability, in that both pieces contain significant coverage of Danny, not just quotes from him. Likewise, the page on |notability calls out |author/journalist criteria such as "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Danny is widely regarded as an important figure and expert source by both fellow journalists (in terms of the number of different journalists who quote him, such as John Markoff or Ken Auletta) and by search engineers as well. When I talk to Google founder Larry Page and say "Danny Sullivan wrote X," Larry might agree or disagree, but Larry knows who Danny is and his expertise. But it sounds like Wikipedia prefers published material, so I'd point back to the USA Today and New York Times articles. Or see Chapter 7 ("The Danny Sullivan Show") of the book The Google Story, by David Vise
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: The provided sources are overwhelmingly just news articles quoting something Sullivan said or are primary sources. It comes across as a very concerted effort to appear notable without actually being so. Sullivan does not appear to meet any of the guidelines in . If Sullivan has done something notable that is of lasting historical impact in his field, I can see him being notable, but I am not seeing any evidence of this in his article or the sources provided
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)