Deletion of Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy

Comment: as per Djapa Owen and The Drover's Wife. My first instinct, upon reading the discussion at ANI, and seeing that the article was nominated by one of our more outspoken inclusionists, was to come and close this discussion as a delete. However, after carefully reading the article, and seeing some of the discussion above, I have to agree with those who wish to keep the article. There is a lot of information here which is not in the Jones article, and adding it to his bio would be . However, I think that it needs to be in Wikipedia, under a better name; the current title is quite confusing. This is a case of a single event snowballing, but it's properly handled as a discussion of the event, not the people involved
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: meets . still getting coverage this month http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbo=d&gl=au&tbm=nws&q=%22alan+jones%22+2gb&oq=%22alan+jones%22+2gb&gs_l=serp.3..0.13498.14482.0.15044.4.4.0.0.0.0.156.312.0j2.2.0...0.0...1c.1.sJItod-bgps
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: Does not need a ''separate'' article as the parent article is not very long. It is about one speech which has not received any significant international coverage is thus is unlikely to be of great special interest to Wikioedia readers in any case. It also can easily volate UNDUE and . The !votes about it "being part of a bigger picture" do not make any ''policy'' arguments at all. And the case at hand requires us to look at policies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Particularly as his comments are covered in full in the main article, I fail to see why we should have an article on what I would call a minor controversy that had no major effects, other than politicians lining up to say how dreadful his comments were. I don't believe this meets all aspects of , particularly  (no particular wide-ranging effects) and  (very little further analysis). Same information is found at the main Alan Jones article, and article title is not a plausible redirect, so no need for a merge. Several "keep" comments seem to be simply , and the claim that the incident surpasses Jones in notability is laughable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:EFFECT||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:ITSNOTABLE)

Comment: Satisfies  with national coverage over an extended duration. The article itself could be improved of course
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: Clearly |notable controversy with ongoing coverage lasting beyond the initial news spike
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: meets . Definately notable. This issue surpasses the notability of Jones himself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: Political and social event in Australia that meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: meets . Still being mentioned in the media so a keep in my opinion http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbo=d&gl=au&tbm=nws&q=%22alan+jones%22+2gb&oq=%22alan+jones%22+2gb&gs_l=serp.3..0.13498.14482.0.15044.4.4.0.0.0.0.156.312.0j2.2.0...0.0...1c.1.sJItod-bgps
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: per , especially since this comes under . There are already two paragraphs in the main article, so there is no real need to merge
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:BLP)

Comment: meets . Still being covered in the media and situation ongoing (sponsors Isuzu and Lincraft pulled out last week). Certainly at least as notable as Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: classic #NEWS (newsworthy event but with no enduring notability). And "died of shame controversy"? It needs a page move at the very least. I urge the closing admin to consider that many of the Keep !votes above cite rationales expressly excluded in 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)