Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Myles (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. This is a close call, but I find the arguments of those advocating deletion to be more substantial and persuasive, particularly the in-depth analysis from Timothy that went unchallenged. As an aside, the back and forth discussion between some editors in the debate wasn't helpful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Peter Myles
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails the "Google test". Had a previous no-consensus AfD 13 or 14 years prior. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: This I think is the same person. We don't have much of anything for sourcing.  Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has received nominations for important awards. See previous Afd and page.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  21:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mushy Yank Oh, the irony of AfD. Articles (including those of living people!) are ignored until there's a seven day time limit. Now there are citations proving that not only does Peter Myles exist, he's been nominated for a couple awards that also exist...at least, according to a couple of listings that don't have an author byline (we treat such sites as though they're self-published without editorial oversight/unpublished), and only one source that probably did have an editor look it over. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Did he or did he not receive nominations? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  00:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's another site that attests to the fact that Myles won the Golden Reel Award in 2017. Toughpigs (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Toughpigs Judging by the "S&P Staff" byline, that's a press release, so doesn't count toward notability (since it probably didn't go through editorial oversight). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mushy Yank Most likely, but it's hard to tell if there's no reliable sourcing to attest to that. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. So would you agree to say that he's therefore most likely notable, especially as, according to your own assessment, one source at least attests to the fact that he did at least receive one nomination? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  16:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mushy Yank No, because I'm looking for 3-5 sources to satisfy the "significant coverage" requirement stated in the general notability guidelines (which are summarized here.) I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link to that essay that's indeed associated with a quite important guideline. 3-5? OK, sure. I cannot see those numbers in the link you directed me to but they're probably a translation of "multiple" (present, if I remember well, in the original guideline at some point) (my personal understanding of multiple makes it start at 2, but 3-5 is indeed more and the more the merrier). I never doubted you knew guidelines quite well, so it's probably useless to remind you that ANYBIO states: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" Best. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank)  18:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mushy Yank Right, there needs to be multiple sources, and two sources are...less than ideal for a living person. Then there's the fact that the award is supposed to be both well-known and significant; I don't know about this award, and I can't verify that's it's well known by people in the film editing industry. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: This site reports that Myles won the Golden Reel award in 2017; if that's a press release, then the release comes from the people who give the awards. There's no reason to doubt the veracity of the award-givers. Toughpigs (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of the veracity of the award givers, it's a question of how an award can be notable at all if it isn't one that gets any third-party media coverage reporting its award presentations as news. If all you had to do to make a person "notable because award" was source it to content self-published by the presenters of said award, then we'd have to start keeping articles about high school valedictorians and people who won employee of the month at fast-food franchises — so it isn't a matter of whether or not we can locate just any verification whatsoever that the award claim is technically true, it's a matter of whether or not we can locate evidence that the media consider said award to be important enough to independently report as news. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even awards only count as notability claims to the extent that they can be referenced to media coverage to demonstrate that said award is notable in the first place — an award must itself pass WP:GNG on its sourceability before it can extend any notability to its nominees or winners, and cannot hand its nominees or winners an instant notability freebie if you have to rely on the award's own self-published content about itself to source the claim because media reportage is non-existent. It's not a question of whether anybody thinks the awards are telling the truth or lying about their own honorees — it's a question of whether the award is notable at all if it doesn't have media coverage. Simply put, Peter Myles cannot be "inherently" notable under WP:ANYBIO for winning an award that does not itself pass WP:NEVENT standards for awards, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than has actually been shown. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the Golden Reel Award is notable enough that we've got an article on Golden Reel Awards 2022, which was hosted by Patton Oswalt and included Tom Cruise as a presenter. It looks to me like this is more than an employee of the month. Toughpigs (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not until you can source the claim that he won one to some evidence of third party coverage about the 2017 awards, it's not. The extent to which it counts as a notability claim is strictly coterminous with the reliability and independent thirdpartyness of the specific source you use to specifically footnote his own personal victories and/or nominations, and has absolutely nothing to do with who hosted or presented awards in a different year than the one you're trying to render into a notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Does this or this, or this or this correspond to what you have in mind? Other coverage of that type exists. Please don't ask me for sources proving the notability of the sources that show the notability of the sources (:D), thank you in advance. As for the notability of the GRA, I've added a few sources to the MPSE page, in case anyone should doubt they are an important award. Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  22:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mushy Yank Bearcat and I aren't asking for proof that the sources are notable, we're asking for sources to prove the award itself is noted by other people to determine if Myles is noted by the nomination by said awards. Truthfully, this sort of scrutiny needs to be done for any article on a living person.
 * While the sources you provided might prove the notability of the awards, they don't significantly mention Myles, and notability isn't inherited; are there any sources at all that's not a press release where Myles is significantly mentioned (talked about for at least an entire paragraph) that's not a press release or interview? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I may be mistaken but I don't think that Bearcat and you were asking the same thing. Still this reply is to your last comment and it's the following: The sources I provided here do not mean to prove the notability of the award. They prove Myles received the awards and nominations. If anyone doubts the award is notable, let them see the article about the MPSE, where I have added sources (not that they were totally needed). But to make sure I understand: you do now agree that he actually received the awards and nominations? and that they are important? If so, you will agree that he does meet one of the inclusionary requirements for notability then, won't you? What does this have to do with "inherited notabilty"? (!) As for one paragraph or more about him (in order for him to meet also the general requirements), does this or this (signed) (or this type of coverage) satisfy you or will you find it is not independent enough, as being the introduction to an interview/event? Even if that should be the case, I'm afraid that I will leave it at that, if I may. Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  00:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Literally by definition, a person can only be notable for winning award that is itself notable, and cannot be notable for winning an award that is not itself notable — so in order to make a person "notable because award", it is necessary not only to verify that the award was received, but that the award itself is a notable one for the purposes of being able to make its winners notable for winning it. Notability is never a question of what the article says, and always a question of how well the article does or doesn't reference the things it says to media. So you can take the snark you directed at me and point it at somebody who actually has some flying honks to give about it, because nobody is ever notable for winning an award that isn't being sourced properly — so if you want to claim that a person is notable because award, the onus is on you to show the correct kind of sourcing to make that notable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I had not only submitted 4 links to your assessment here but also added sources to the page about the award but apparently you didn't read that part of my reply nor check the MPSE page but rather decided that my joke about sources deserved your wrath and contempt. I didn't except your gratitude and thanks for providing the sources you requested, but still, I am not particularly impressed by your sense of humour, to be totally honest with you. Anyway, again, and especially given the tone and content of your last reply, I'll leave it at that. Thank you for sharing your opinion about notability. The awards and nominations were received, the awards are important, sources tend to prove it; now, what Wikipedia does of this is another thing, and what your personal views about this are, yet another one. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  01:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mushy Yank Whether or not you like the tonality of Bearcats' comment, they are correct when they say I don't see any joking around in the comment; then again, tonality isn't conveyed well (if at all!) in texg. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right, I suppose, when you say tonality isn't conveyed well (if at all!) in texg and that can indeed be a cause of problems and misunderstanding. But indeed I don't care very much for the quite unambiguous tone of Bearcat's comment, especially because it's a reply to a post where I presented sources that they requested. I did spent quite some time looking for and presenting sources you and Bearcat requested. They show, in my view, that the award/nominations were received by Myles (see here and the article), and, on the MPSE article, that this is an important award. I have the feeling that I am repeating myself and perhaps that you are not reading the sources you are requesting, to tell the truth.
 * Indeed when you mention that Literally by definition, a person can only be notable for winning award that is itself notable, and cannot be notable for winning an award that is not itself notable — so in order to make a person "notable because award", it is necessary not only to verify that the award was received, but that the award itself is a notable one for the purposes of being able to make its winners notable for winning it., that is obviously correct, sure, but I thought that the sources presented were precisely addressing this very issue (veracity of the award, significance of the award) and, on top of this, all of this seems already contained in a more concise way in the quotation in bold of ANYBIO, above, in my opinion, but no harm in rephrasing it, certainly.
 * You don't see "joking around" in whose comments? Mine? May I quote myself then? (I'll do it in red, not green because it's not someone else I quote) (it has a laughing face in it, emphasis mine) was intended as a joke. I suppose that was perceived as snark but even then, reading the rest of the comment (and the sources it contained, and referred to, on another page) would have, I think, made the general spirit/intended tone clear (or clearer).
 * Now, if you would excuse me, I really have no further comment to add to this conversation. If you haven't, please kindly read the various sources I provided 1) here, 2) on the page and 3) on the award page. As much as I am interested in general discussions about the concept of notability on Wikipedia and in real life, I think the main focus here should be on whether Myles is notable or not. I've asked simple questions in my latest comments and received no direct answers (neither from Bearcat nor from you). You requested sources, I did my best to provide them at three different venues. If you still think it's not enough, my time was spent in vain, that's too bad but there's nothing much I can do about it. If you think they address the issue, I'm glad to hear it. Again, thank you for time and replies. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  04:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG. I don't see what he's done that has been notable. If he has been nominated for an Academy Award or a Juno, we need to see that. But right now, there's nothing on the page but a list of things that he's worked on. Film editors are not automatically notable, and getting an award from other film editors doesn't prove notability. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He is not a film editor, He is a film music editor, that is what he does and that is what one award and multiple nominations salute. Sources presented here are precisely meant to show the veracity of the award/nominations..... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  17:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mushy Yank Regardless of whether he's a film editor, or a film music editor, he's still not automatically notable. Actors and actresses aren't automatically notable, either. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But who said he was automatically notable??????????? ......Please read again my comment carefully, and the extensive comments I have already made about this, and ANYBIO, and the pages involved (this Afd, the article discussed and the page about the awards). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)9:22 am, Today (UTC+0) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  09:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.
 * Source eval:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Comments !! Source
 * Name listed with other noms, "Music Editor: Peter Myles", nothing meeting SIGCOV || 1. Neglia, Matt (2022-01-24). "The 2021 Motion Picture Sound Editors (MPSE) Golden Reel Award Nominations". Next Best Picture. Retrieved 2024-01-25.
 * Named in list, "Supervising Music Editors: Clint Bennett, Ryan Rubin Music Editor: Peter Myles", nothing SIGCOV || 2. ^ "Motion Picture Sound Editors Awards: Full 2022 Nominees". headlinermagazine.net. Retrieved 2024-01-25.
 * Name in database table, nothing meeting SIGCOV || 3. ^ "Top Grossing Music Editor at the Worldwide Box Office". The Numbers. Retrieved 2024-01-25.
 * || From above
 * Interview, fails WP:IS || https://www.interlochenpublicradio.org/classical-music/2021-04-10/icymi-film-music-editor-peter-myles-in-conversation-with-classical-ipr
 * Name in list, "Music Editors: Michael Bauer, Peter Myles", nothing meeting SIGCOV || https://soundandpicture.com/2017/02/64th-annual-mpse-golden-reel-awards-winners-announced/
 * Name mention in list "Music Editor: Peter Myles", nothing meets SIGCOV || https://deadline.com/2022/01/golden-reel-awards-2022-nominations-motion-picture-sound-editors-1234918482/
 * }
 * Stopped reviewing the above keep refs, they are just more of the same, it is obvious this is just ref spamming award nominations and name mentions and its nothing but a timesink, eg: "Music Editor: Peter Myles", is obviously not SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  15:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Interview, fails WP:IS || https://www.interlochenpublicradio.org/classical-music/2021-04-10/icymi-film-music-editor-peter-myles-in-conversation-with-classical-ipr
 * Name in list, "Music Editors: Michael Bauer, Peter Myles", nothing meeting SIGCOV || https://soundandpicture.com/2017/02/64th-annual-mpse-golden-reel-awards-winners-announced/
 * Name mention in list "Music Editor: Peter Myles", nothing meets SIGCOV || https://deadline.com/2022/01/golden-reel-awards-2022-nominations-motion-picture-sound-editors-1234918482/
 * }
 * Stopped reviewing the above keep refs, they are just more of the same, it is obvious this is just ref spamming award nominations and name mentions and its nothing but a timesink, eg: "Music Editor: Peter Myles", is obviously not SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  15:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * }
 * Stopped reviewing the above keep refs, they are just more of the same, it is obvious this is just ref spamming award nominations and name mentions and its nothing but a timesink, eg: "Music Editor: Peter Myles", is obviously not SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  15:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Final comment Stopped reviewing the above keep refs, they are just more of the same, it is obvious this is just ref spamming award nominations and name mentions and its nothing but a timesink is, for me, I confess, at best unclear.... those brief mentions (and they are obviously not meant to pass as developed coverage) were required by other users to attest of the award/nominations received. If the users (including me) who presented them had not presented them, the veracity of the said award/nominations that may have the subject meet the requirements of ANYBIO could have been challenged. Timesink? Yes, probably, I agree. Are the award/nominations real? Are they significant?- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  17:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mushy Yank Brief mentions don't pass SIGCOV, and so don't prove notability; therefore, they don't prove the awards/nominations are significant. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ......Please read again my comment carefully, and the extensive comments I have already made about this, and ANYBIO, and the pages involved (this Afd, the article discussed and the page about the awards). Thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  09:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.