Deletion of Let the bodies pile high

Comment: I might be missing something, but I believe that the remark passes . The barrier is actually lower than some of the comments above might seem to suggest for '''significant coverage''': ""significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Pretty much every UK news source has written at least one article about it (for example, BBC News has https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56914432 this article, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56890714 this article, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-56915152 this shorter article, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-56914397 this shorter article and https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56897213 this article which is at least one third focused on the comment and as can be seen by https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=%22bodies+pile+high%22&page=1 this search result, the comment has not been limited to that selection of articles in the BBC's coverage) and so it is clear that it passes that precondition; while no book has been written about the comment, it's plainly not just a trivial footnote like the Bill Clinton example in . It's also worth noting that notability is not temporary, as per . Additionally, its overwhelming coverage combined with Peston's article cited above also make it clear to me that the remark is '''reliable''', '''independent of the subject''' and, finally, that there are multiple secondary '''sources'''. Whether the remark warrants its own page is something that I'm still not sure about, but I wanted to put forward the argument that it does pass 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTTEMPORARY)