Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muther Grumble


 * 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. For the record, "Far too short needs expanding" is not an argument to delete an article at all and was therefore not considered when closing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Muther Grumble

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced and non-notable newspaper Osarius     Talk 17:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Far too short needs expanding-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  17:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

IMHO
 * It is not unreferenced as there is a link to the archive.
 * It is notable as it exposed a major corruption case (Poulson) TobyJ (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The reference provided alone carries zero weight for notability - it has to be other people writing about you, not just your own website. Neither does association with a news event in most cases. However, I've had a look on Google Books and I think there's just about enough coverage there to scrape the bar. You're lucky you caught me in a good mood. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 16:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * At best a Weak Keep -- Even the claim as to "breaking" the Poulson/T. Dan Smith corruption story (a significant scandal of the period) seems overrated, since Muther Grumble alludes to the story being in Private Eye. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2012 (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.