"This subpage is for the discussion of the Marty Munsch article. 

 I have asserted that the article is in need of improvement and that I am going to give some attention to it.... 

 I invite you to comment on what I wrote at  about the Marty Munsch article. 
 Every edit that everyone makes to challenge it is simply reverted by an IP user as vandalism... 
    

 ==Initial comments by SQGibbon regarding my challenges== 

 This is the first time I've really read the article (the one edit I made was pretty easy based on the diffs) and holy crap it needs help.  I've only been through a few of the references but so far it doesn't look good for the article.  That said, he doesn't appear to be entirely non-notable.  I don't know what to say, it will take several hours to go through and excise everything that's OR or is ""supported"" by bogus references and see what's left (if anything).  So here are some ideas as to how to proceed.  First (you should create a subpage here for this), let's go through all the references one by one, noting the text in the article, where the reference goes, if the reference says what it's supposed to, and if it's a good reference (i.e., not a blog, forum post, or non-notable site).  Once that list is in place post it on the Talk page for the article and let's see if we can build a consensus that A) there is a problem and B) you've outlined the major problems that need fixing.  Actually we should just do that and then see where it might lead.  Maybe there will be enough left to make a legitimate article or maybe we'll need to go to WP:PROD.  In any case, the process needs to be transparent, inclusive, and always assuming good faith on the part of the other editors involved.  If things get contentious and outside help is needed (like say WP:ANI) then if you've followed good form it'll be a whole lot easier to make your point.  I'll help where I can.    

 :OK, go to Talk:Marty Munsch and you can see some of my results.  Basically I listed the information that is good enough to keep.   "