Deletion of Andy Muirhead

Comment: While you all sat around grumbling, I went and found some sources and expanded the article to include his career. So all the arguments for deletion are now invalid. A  to the article creator for creating such an unbalanced article in the first place, a TROUT to the nominator for citing ONEEVENT when he is not just known for charge, and a TROUT for everyone who voted deleted while knowing he is notable and not bothering to improve the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT)

Comment: Clearly notable as host of a TV show that has attained quite a following (about 1 million, according to http://www.theage.com.au/national/collectors-may-be-dumped-as-host-faces-porn-charge-20100612-y4ri.html this, which is undeniably significant per ). Not to mention he was also the host of a show on one of Hobart's main radio stations. I'm not sure how this could be construed as 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: I would be happy for the charges to be left out and only be included if he is convicted - why the show is of TV can then be explained in less specific terms. I am surprised he has not had an entry before this as he certainly qualifies under the terms of  with multiple significant TV, Radio and stage appearances
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)

Comment: Very strange to create the article at this time. He was entirely notable through his media work, but I'd have waited until the outcome of judicial proceedings before creating the article. The article has very little merit as it stands, and looks 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINTY)