Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So where the bloody hell are you?


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So where the bloody hell are you?
Delete because it is too short, uses profanity, and is not important enough to warrant any article. Alethiophile 18:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep (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 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 plenty of media attention recently. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability established through news links. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per TheKoG. I have argued here many times that it is not at all inappropriate to tag an article for deletion immediately upon its creation in such cases as the article is altogether insufficient to demonstrate the notability of its subject (see, e.g., here, noting that, if an shoddy/short article is deleted, it can always be recreated in a more evolved form), but this article now is sufficiently expanded as to merit its being kept.  I fear that Alethiophile, in view of this nomination and her nomination of Peter North (porn star), does not fully appreciate that Wikipedia is not censored for minors and that a determination as to the article's "offensiveness" (to him/her, for example) is no way relevant to a determination as to its worth or the notability of its subject.  Joe
 * CommentAlethiophile has suggested on my talk page that this was a personal attack. I thought that I properly critcized (albeit stridently) the rationale underlying the nomination but did not write pejoratively vis-à-vis the nominator; to have written that perhaps he/she did not fully appreciate WP:NOT, I thought, was not to criticize the nominator but, instead, to suggest that he/she familiarize herself with policies reflecting a general consensus.  Do others believe that I (and other editors on this page who voted "keep" in view of WP:NOT) wrote untowardly?  Joe 19:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course not, I would agree that Alethiophile has shown a lack of understanding of WP:NOT, and I do not consider that to be a personal attack. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not in the least; he actually left the same message on my talk page as well. If I was interested in personal attacks, I probably would not have cited WP:AGF. -- Kinu t /c  20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Uses profanity? Huh?  Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, 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. 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. -- Kinu  t /c  19:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons others have given. KarlBunker 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the reasons above. --Bduke 20:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep based on notability as established above. -- E lkman - (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This Australian Government ad campaign has made news in three significant countries. It is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 22:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 22:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete.In the attempt to reinforce the fact that Wiki is not censored for minors, it appears the article itself has avoided scrutiny. This is unencyclopedic. Encise 00:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. could do with a close up of that girl though... .  It is notable as it has made news through parts of the world.  --Midnighttonight 00:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. I wonder if we have an article for throw a shrimp on the barbie?--cj | talk 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, there is: Shrimp on the barbie. -Canley 02:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I originally created the article as a redirect to Bloody (where WTBHAY? was mentioned). I certainly think it's deserving of a full article given the amount of media coverage in Australia and the UK. --Canley 02:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is a notable advertising campaign which has caused a great deal of controversy in British-Australian relations and it is well-written. --EuropracBHIT 09:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep Entirely notable, for all the reasons stated above. Wikipedia is not censored. Chairman S.  Talk  09:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. On one hand, its about an advertising campaign. On the other hand, said advertising campaign is making front-page news in at least three countries (Australia, Canada, and England) due to controversies stemming from the advertisment. -- Saberwyn 10:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Front-page news? No. But news. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish I had scans of the front pages of the three or four The Daily Telegraph (Australia) front pages dedicated to what they claim is intolerance and misunderstanding of Australian culture. I think it also appeared on the front of one day's The Sydney Morning Herald, but my certainty is less on this one. -- Saberwyn 09:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. QazPlm 13:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable enough. --Soumyasch 13:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I was interested enough to look up the info, plus, bloody is only considered a profanity when acompanied by context such as intention and social convention. For the world, its only an adjective and only for a minute percent of population its a profanity.
 * So we're keeping this, right? --Sammysam 23:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Week Keep. This Australian completely agrees with Saberwyn. —Chris Chittleborough 09:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it weren't for the reaction against it I wouldn't oppose a merge, but as it is it deserves an article in its own right. Andjam 10:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it weren't for the reaction against it I wouldn't oppose a merge, but as it is it deserves an article in its own right. Andjam 10:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete WP is not censored, but do we need this bloody advertising campaign (than we have to put in all others too), you should hit people with something, or your product has no future. The basic concept of advertising today. MaNeMeBasat 14:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Advertising campaigns that cause fuss are usually more successful than the run-of-the-mill ad, but this is an awful amount of fuss. -- Saberwyn 21:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but not under this article - I personally think the ad in itself is offensive, but that's not a reason to take it off Wikipedia - it has made major news around the world and is quite notable. However, I think it would be a good idea if we took it out of this page and put it under Tourism Australia who made/commissioned the ad, with a redirect from this page to that one. I note that Tourism Australia doesn't have a Wikipedia page at the moment. (JROBBO 05:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Keep - This is easily a notable-enough current issue. With all due respect to User:Alethiophile his nomination of it probably stems from regional ignorance, and the fact that it uses profanity is not in the slightest bit relevant. Ramanpotential (talk - contribs) 07:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * if User:Alethiophile really is operating out of 'regional ignorance', that may not last long: assuming the following report is a harbinger of things to come: "Family group protest over bloody ad". -- contribs 14:50 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is the 2006 version of Throw another shrimp on the barbie. -- Chuq 09:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. And it's appropriately longer now. I added a section on the parody version of the ad and the small brouha it raised in its own right. -- contribs 03:00 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.