Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Maloy

:{{la|Roy Maloy}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy_Maloy Stats])

:({{Find sources|Roy Maloy}})

This page is an advertisement for the subject rather than a true biography of a living person.

References invariably do not support the claims made on the page, or are references which quote the subject and are biased.

Unreferenced and deleted material is placed back on the page without any change.

Honoraray tiles claimed by the author are in fact self-titles by the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk • contribs) 20:25, March 12, 2013‎

• This page is in fact a true and accurate biography for a living person. The page details facts about this person, which are supported by independent references as listed on the page. The honorary titles are supported by independent and verifiable sources. These sources have been removed before discussion on this page began. --Powerknow100 (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete editing of the page while discussion continues is allowed. Continuing to place the same un-referenced material on the page. This page doe snot meet the standard for Verifiable sources.

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dl2000 (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 04:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This is clear self promotion. After some investigation we found the honorary titles are only supported by persons directly affiliated with Roy Maloy or Roy Maloy himself.Artsrights (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep A Google News search shows that there are many reliable sources that give significant coverage to Roy Maloy. The article needs work, and all claims in the article should be cited to reliable sources. This is easy to accomplish through the normal editing process. The solution to relatively minor problems in an article about a notable person is to improve, expand and reference the article. We don't delete such articles about notable people, and we don't allow single purpose accounts with grudges against notable living people to sway deletion debates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

*Delete Constantly undoing and returns the same biased, self-promoting, unverifiable material. It is not possible to improve, expand and reference an article if the author just puts the same biased material in time and time again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk • contribs) 07:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

:::I could not disagree more, as the self-correcting influence of collaborative editing of this encyclopedia has resulted in an imperfect but exceptionally useful information resource with well over 4 million English language articles, most of which are very useful. When dedicated editors put an article on their watch lists, as I have done in this case, the sort of manipulation you describe will not last long. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment He's also known as Roy McPherson[http://werribee.starcommunity.com.au/star/2013-02-19/paws-and-paint-is-a-perfect-therapy/]

::({{Find sources|Roy McPherson}})

:Also this article has been subject to extensive editing during AfD which may have removed some evidence of notability - referenced content about his art was deleted[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_Maloy&diff=543789292&oldid=543789175] but I added a brief summary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• As has been clearly stated already in this discussion there are certain users who clearly have grudges against this person who are removing verifiable and independent references almost as soon as they are added to the article. If this were to stop happening then as '''Cullen suggested the article could easily be improved to the level suggested. --Powerknow100 (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Adding references that do not contain any reference to the claims made, are no verifiable sources. Stop using false or misleading references and they won't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• The references do in fact support the claims made, as clearly stated by others who have taken part in this discussion. Please stop vandalising this page to serve your personal vendetta. --Powerknow100 (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The page has had a "citations needed" tag for almost 4 years. It has only been the challenging and removal of uncited material that has led to improvement of the page with verifiable sources such as "Record Holders republic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 March 2013 (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.