Deletion of President Obama on Death of Osama bin Laden (SPOOF)

Comment: I agree that the article might be one-sided, but we have tags for that (I've added one).  I also agree that there are several posts that seem to only show the video, and provide no actual content.  But this doesn't account for all the sources   informs us that blogs from professional news editors are still reputable sources.  More importantly is , specifically criteria #1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:NEWSBLOG||WP:WEB)

Comment: Obvious  nomination. Sources need a cleanup, but Carrite proves that decent ones exist. Ten Pound Hammer, Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|his otters and a clue-bat
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: This thing is sourced to the gills; I grabbed one footnote at random from the ''San Francisco Chronicle'' and it wasn't misrepresented or superficial. I suppose one could argue in favor of an -IDONTLIKEIT-NOTCOMEDYCOMPENDIUM delete, but that would be pushing a big bolder up a big hill. Best for the nominator to grit his teeth, avert his eyes, and move along, in my opinion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: WP:N|Worthy of note. Easily sourced topic showing the solid meeting of  and the meeting of SNGs  and  (and yes, NF can applied to video lampoons as well as to feature length films), despite the  comparisons and the cherry picking of a few weaker sources as if they were representative of the overall available. Per , We at Wikipedia can also respect the First Ammendment and accept that we US citizens are allowed to mock and spoof our leaders and sometimes such lampoons meet inclusion criteria, |like it or not.  As an aside, I think http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y54FRMedT_s THIS one is funnier
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WEB||WP:NF||WP:WAX||WP:NOTCENSORED||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)