Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Pajon


 * 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 Keep. czar ⨹   05:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

George Pajon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Musician who has played with notable bands, but has not "demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases", per WP:MUSICBIO. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What is notable are the two Grammy awards, the many individual production and writing credits in music and movies / television which show an extensive career. There are over a hundred credits in queue in the credit database for this year alone.  If you're going to delete this page you might need to delete all of his peers and thousands of other pages that have less standing ( no Grammy awards or nominations ).  I've included more information including his solo release from 2005.  -- HafizHanif (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (UTCNote: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  19:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  19:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO BlueSalix (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You must enjoy who you are so much. Are you going to chase down all of my efforts and call for deletion?  --HafizHanif (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If the rest of them also fail GNG, etc., yes, probably I will. BlueSalix (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes Notability (music).
 * I'm sorry BlueSalix and LuckyLouie, I understand your desire to keep Wikipedia, the crowning achievement of the internet, clutter free. I should be more considerate in supporting my argument. So what are the qualifications for George Pajon as a notable music professional?  Well, let's look at his credits and his productions and then look at the criterion at the Notability (music) page.

-
 * I've included some points:
 * Under "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" and in italics below the main 12 standards:
 * Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, UNLESS they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as SOLO RELEASES.
 * He released a solo album in 2005 which is still available for download in digital form AND also as a compact disc ( see cited sources ). His solo release qualifies him as a stand alone artist.

-
 * So now we can look at his work as a writer / composer, producer and musician with the B.E.P.'s, with Fergie and work with movie / television and his work with various solo artists.

-
 * Item 1: 1st subheading:
 * published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries ( please see documentary of his wedding and the news article of the same )( please also see the interview newspaper article from the Downey Patriot, that city's newspaper ) ( please also see the articles about the lawsuit filed against his money manager - who was the band's money manager and George's personal money manager ).

- Why would these independent sources care about this guy to write about him or shoot his wedding? Must be because he is notable. -
 * Item 8:
 * Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy ( please see Grammy awards, his writing and production credits, they are not for simply playing a guitar, session musicians do not get writing / production credit, only individuals who actually wrote or produced parts or main themes of a composition )

-
 * Item 10:
 * Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show ( please see first and second sentence under "Movies and Television" ) He has worked individually outside of the band's capacity on several movies and that particular cable television cartoon show.  Please see the various credits to see his name alone next to these credits.

-
 * You two and all others are free ( more like compelled ) to peruse the list of credits at the cited source to see for yourselves.
 * George qualifies as a "composer" according to his list of credits and the guidelines for musicians page, I could share that if need be but I think we can see what all this spells.   --HafizHanif (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * keep May meet WP:BAND. Appears to meet the GNG with sources in the article. Hobit (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)



 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment I added the solo release, the Grammy Awards for writing and production and some other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HafizHanif (talk • contribs) 06:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the relist template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient."
 * Comment Per | Re-Listing Discussions it reads:

User talk:Northamerica1000 please provide a clearer explanation other than repeating the prior per guidelines as to a THIRD go 'round. Looking at prior interactions with the two early dissenters, one could see they were trolling me from another editing battle prior to me putting this entry together. Haven't sufficient third-party independent sources been cited? The awards, solo releases, production and composer credits for professional work outside of being connected to a band and so on has shown substantial notoriety, hasn't it? Does there need to be a consensus to agree to these realities; the meeting of several qualifications instead of only one ( one being enough to qualify )? --HafizHanif (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion was relisted in hopes for a clearer consensus to be reached. There have only been four total participants to this discussion (including the nominator), and opinion is divided, despite your lengthy commentary for the article's retention. It is not uncommon for discussions with this type of circumstance and level of participation to be relisted twice. NorthAmerica1000 03:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * User talk:Northamerica1000, are entries only agreed upon by consensus regardless of their standing? That seems like an incompetent approach and not according to guidelines.  Looking at the record, when the two dissenting votes were cast, the entry was in its infancy.  Help me understand the logic of this procedure: the article is, in this case, of a notable musician, the notoriety is cited and at least three qualifications met.  It stands on its own looking at the qualifications.  The two dissenting 'votes' haven't commented further.  Why is this particular entry being scrutinized?  Does anyone care to actually look through the entry in question, or the history?  I've notice that editors and admins respond better when links are used to support debate, perhaps due to laziness or group think.  Instead of including the links, I added them in my initial response... and the debate has been found MOOT thereafter.  This space isn't a democracy, so even with ten dissenting 'votes' against a factual and notable entry is of no consequence.  So what is the factual hold up here?  --HafizHanif (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment

Okay, here is MORE substantial criteria made clear per WP:MUSICBIO [ A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets AT LEAST ONE of the following criteria ]:

item 1 Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. SEE

item 4 Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. SEE

item 5 Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). SEE

item 8 Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. SEE

item 10 Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. SEE

I have been gladly taking notes of the process and resistance to productivity on Wikipedia... doesn't encourage new folks from bringing more contributions... but actually frustrates them, discourages them and is very disheartening. --HafizHanif (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:BASIC and criteria #1 and #6 of WP:MUSICBIO, the latter (#6) per having been a lead guitarist for The Black Eyed Peas and association with other independently notable musicians. Source examples include:, , , , , . NorthAmerica1000 07:42, 4 December 2014 (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.