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. John254 16:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NN & spam, author has been spamming other articles with links to this rogerd (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The spamming behaviour is inappropriate, but I have to say keep for the article on Diamond Joe, despite it's current poor quality. Putting aside the issue of whether his books make him notable or not, I would say he's a notable figure for the role he played in Elvis Presley's life, and there are certainly a bunch of third-party references I can find on the internet. However, I think it would not be inappropriate to consider moving the page, since he is really the namesake of the "real" Diamond Joe. I think this particular page should probably be a DAB page that links to both Diamond Joes.
Comment. Incidentally, User:V0taire (the spammer) deleted the AfD template from the article. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is clearly demonstrated by the sources found by Google Books and Google News, including [1][2][3][4]. Editor behaviour should be dealt with by discussion, warnings, blocks etc., not by deleting articles on notable subjects. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2008 (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.