Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Perlmutter

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. When you filter out the nonsense, there is a consensus to delete here. If anyone wants this as a Draft, let me know. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Perlmutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG SadHaas (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subject does not appear to meet the qualifications surrounding notability. Subject has held a managerial role at a publicly traded company, something that many people can claim. Negotiating an internet agreement with Cuba is not a notable enough accomplishment in and of itself to justify this person having a Wikipedia biography. Although the rest of the subject's pedigree is impressive, nothing in his background appears to meet the notability requirements.

This article was previous proposed (but not nominated for deletion), but the proposal was removed by the original creator of the page on the defense that "signing the first Internet agreement between a US company and Cuba is much more than a business achievement; it is a historic moment in the development of Internet in Cuba (see articles related to that subject)." This rationale is faulty for several reasons.

First, the source material confirms that the subject DID NOT sign the internet agreement in question. Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, signed the agreement. The subject was part of a several-person team that took part in negotiations.

Second, the source material referenced is from the Penn Gazette, which is the alumni magazine for the subjects Alma Mater, University of Pennsylvania. Per this publication's own website, the magazine is "written for, about, and frequently by alumni" of the University. I would call into question whether an alumni magazine with such a mission statement would constitute an independent source.

On further review, it appears that much of the source material comes from alumni magazines, a Google sponsored blog for its own employees (certainly not an independent or unbiased source given the topic of this page), as well as several legitimate news articles where the subject is only mentioned in passing or has one of his blog entries quoted. In one Wall Street Journal from 12-16-2016, Brett Perlmutter is not mentioned in the article at all, although he is pictured in an image attached to the article. On reviewing the source material, I cannot identify a single article where the subject of this biography is also the main subject discussed in the article, unless that article is from a publication affiliated with either the subjects company, or a school he graduated from.

All that the source material confirms is that Mr. Perlmutter was indeed employed by Google, and has some role in the negotiation of this internet deal. However, the claim that Mr. Perlmutter was alone instrumental enough in orchestrating this deal to meet the requirement for notability is not supported by independent source material. Further, even if the source material did support this, the signing of an internet deal with Cuba alone still might not meet the notability requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadHaas (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm kind of on the fence. There is a fair amount of source material, but this could be considered WP:1E, as he doesn't seem to be notable except for his involvement in the agreement between Google and Cuba. Is there perhaps an article with which this one can merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMB1980 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shell, as the general rule per WP:1E is to cover the event and not the person, I think the most appropriate outcome is to merge some information regarding the internet deal into the existing article "Internet in Cuba", and delete the individual article on Brett Perlmutter. The Internet in Cuba page currently mentions nothing about this specific deal and would be the most appropriate place to move such information SadHaas (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update to the above: The "Internet in Cuba" article does have a single line referencing the Google deal. The source for that specific line (a Business Insider article) has a brief mention of Brett Perlmutter's role as negotiator of the deal.

I question how significant of an event this is if Wikipedia's "Internet in Cuba" article has such a small reference to it. I think this event can be expanded on in the "Internet in Cuba" article instead of warranting a stand-alone article for Brett Perlmutter SadHaas (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: per Nom. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This Person is a significant and meets all threshold for notability. I've added sourced highlighting Perlmutter's seminal role in not only the development of Internet in Cuba but also the Cuban Thaw. See changes and referencing here too:
  https://phys.org/news/2016-12-google-cuba-faster-access-company.htmlhttps://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cuba-google-move-improve-islands-connectivity-62004795
  https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0321/How-Google-plans-to-improve-Internet-service-in-Cuba
  https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/el-hombre-de-google-en-cuba-201642500
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Some other notes --

  1. this person is responsible for many events, so WP;1E does not apply
  2. Sourcing is much more vast than alumni magazines, please review sourcing

  Lobsteroll (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sourcing only confirms Perlmutter's role involving Google's expansion in Cuba. Referring to this as more than one event is a stretch.

  All other achievements are sourced from either alumni magazines or the transcript of an interview with Perlmutter by a representative of his alma mater. A transcript of an interview does not meet the threshold of an independent source, as is it quoted from Perlmutter himself and therefor not independently verified.

  Added source material does not appear to validate claim that Perlmutter held a seminal role. Each article has, at most, a quote by Perlmutter. (I exclude El Observador from this observation as it is written in Spanish).

  Wikipedia threshold for source material dictates that context matters WP:CONTEXTMATTERS

  Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

  All that the added source material supports is that the event occurred, and was of some notability. The references to Perlmutter are insufficient to warrant his own BLP SadHaas (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A few other notes:

  1. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"... In this case, the person has had a highly significant role not only over one event, but of the course of multiple events

  https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-and-obama-administration-connect-over-cuba-1458763836 ... in which perlmutter is the key person

  2. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." ... It is important to note that Perlmutter is notable for more than one event, but famous for a key few

  2. Independent source materials do show that Perlmutter was responsible for orchestrating both deals (December 2016 and March 2019), as well as creating the first internet center with high speed broadband in March 2016, which was announced by President Obama

  https://www.forbes.com/profile/brett-perlmutter/?sh=48acc2861e69

  https://apnews.com/article/cuba-north-america-technology-caribbean-business-d076fa0c68b440ada320cec8478a08dc ... in which Perlmutter signed March 2019 deal ... again nothing short of historic to sign the first deal to pave the way for US-Cuba subsea cable

  https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-signs-deal-with-cuba-to-speed-services-1481573940 ... Perlmutter in photo caption is clearly present at signing of Dec 2016 deal Lobsteroll (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Finally, this article meets a higher threshold of notability than other BLPs, including: David Haberfeld Lobsteroll (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This event is not highly significant, and the broad article Internet in Cuba has only a brief mention of this event. Google signing a deal to operate servers in Cuba, the 63rd largest economy in the world with a population of 11 million, is hardly highly significant. If it is, why does it not have its own article, or at least more detail on an article exclusively dedicated to the Internet in Cuba?

  2. As perviously mentioned, none of the source material seems to support the assertion that Perlmutter alone was responsible for bringing internet to Cuba. The Wall Street Journal Article above does not mention Perlmutter at all, save for a caption indicating his presence in a photo. This does not support the assertion that the subject had a significant role; it refutes it.

  3. The Forbes source material clearly indicates that its contents were provided by Brett Perlmutter. A profile provided by the subject constitutes self published material and fails to meet the threshold of reliable, independent source material.

  4. If a user has concerns about the notability of subjects of other BLP, they can propose that article for deletion. The notability of David Haberfeld is irrelevant to this discussion. SadHaas (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: Finally, many Google executives pass the notability threshold: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Google_employees ... thus that is not an argument for deletion of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

  The inclusion of other Google executives is not pertinent to this discussion. Google has 140,000 employees; some of them will be notable enough for a BLP. This discussion is limited to whether Perlmutter alone meets the notability threshold for a BLP SadHaas (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The included source material is either inapplicable or fails to demonstrate that Perlmutter meets notability standard. The orchestration of this internet deal does not meet the standard of a "highly significant event", and a standalone BLP for subject with no notability beyond this is not warranted — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadHaas (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: SadHaas (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
• Merge some data into page Internet in Cuba, which only sparsely mentions the event the subject is involved with. As it is Google's internet deal with Cuba that appears noteworthy, not the subject, further elaboration of the internet deal should be merged to the relevant existing article SadHaas (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)— Duplicate vote: SadHaas (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
• Delete. I searched for coverage in Google, Google News, ProQuest, and Newspapers.com. The only sources that I could find simply quoted Perlmutter or mentioned him in passing: it cannot be said that any of them "addresses the topic directly and in detail" for purposes of the GNG. For instance, the Wall Street Journal article mentioned above contains nothing more than a few quotes from Perlmutter; it does not discuss him in depth. Notability requires significant coverage, and Perlmutter does not seem to meet that requirement. I considered the possibility of merging/redirecting to Internet in Cuba, but I feel that, given the very limited sourcing available, any mention of him in that article would be undue. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. Forbes article contains original reporting from Forbes at bottom of page https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30-2016/media/#5a2c11c441a5 67.53.60.250 (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I note that virtually all of the discussion here (including multiple "!votes") emanates from two low-activity editors whose only participation in Wikipedia seems to revolve around the creation, and attempted deletion, of this article. Relisting for broader input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 03:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Perlmutter clearly meets the BLP requirement for three notable achievements: 1. March 2016 negotiated Google Global Cache agreement .... see Miami Herald article behind paywall https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article170757412.html 2. March 2019 Negotiated Peering agreement https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cuba-google-move-improve-islands-connectivity-62004795 and 3. Obama announced Internet center https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/03/21/obama-announced-google-fiber-to-be-used-in-cuba.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/3046635/google-to-bring-internet-to-unconnected-cuba.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.60.250 (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: 67.53.60.250 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
• Delete. Source material barely mentions Perlmutter at all, and does not support the claim that he was instrumental enough in multiple events to warrant a BLP. The event Perlmutter was involved with should be elaborated on other articles, but Perlmutter himself definitely fails the notability requirement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP: Perlmutter is mentioned in all references and citations in entry. Not hard to realize he was instrumental in not one event, but rather multiple, and clearly meets BLP notewrthiness standards Lobsteroll (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)— Duplicate vote: Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened after a "no consensus" closure and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 21.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In the AfD review, it was suggested by the initial AfD closer that all duplicate votes be struck to reduce confusion for whoever closes this discussion. I am in agreement that this should be done. Most of the prior discussion was done by two suspected WP:SPA, and the noise crowds out the commentary of other contributors. Ksoze1 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've struck all of the duplicate votes I can find. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Pppery, how about moving them to the talk page? The visual clutter is too much. Indeed, how about moving DUCK !votes too, including the nomination?User:Pppery SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @ user:Pppery and @user:SmokeyJoe. Today is the last day this discussion is slated to be open and there has not been any additional commentary. Might you both consider adding your thoughts on the matter given your input into the relisting discussion? Ksoze1 (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the coverage in the article isn't even primarily about him, it's about the internet speed efforts, the rest of what's there is....cruft. CUPIDICAE💕 16:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. This AfD is a mess. Tainted by the nominator being a WP:DUCK, and with a lot of other dubious input. Allow renomination by an experienced editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2022 (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.