Deletion of So where the bloody hell are you?

Comment: at the least for the sake of lack of real reasons for nomination; "too short" is not a reason for deletion (tag it as a stub), and neither is "uses profanity" (or should we delete cunt as well?). While one must |assume good faith, I too am a little nonplussed by this nomination and the one for the article on Peter North (porn star)|Peter North.  It would be a ''keep'' regardless, as it is most certainly notable based on the news mentions provided (and there are certainly more; for what it's worth, I originally found out about this on my sub-par local news on which the anchors consider Oklahoma to be "foreign") and the controversy caused
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: I am the article's creator). Your arguments are fairly flawed in my opinion: if it is "too short" then it needs expansion, not deletion (you did only wait less than http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=So_where_the_bloody_hell_are_you%3F&diff=45133966&oldid=45133727 two minutes after it's creation before nominating for deletion which didn't give me or other editors long in which to expand it). If it uses "profanity" then |Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors (note that bloody on it's own exists as an article). Your only argument which would stand up, if valid, is that it is not sufficiently important to merit an article. I would disagree with that since it has received http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8&q=where+the+bloody+hell+are+you&btnG=Search+News plenty of media attention recently
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)