Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill (second nomination)


 * 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 was No Consensus (closed by non-admin), strong views on all sides, but clearly no consensus to delete/keep or merge. A very messy AfD. RMHED (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

300-page iPhone bill
Previous AfD and DRV: Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill Deletion review/Log/2007 September 9 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete I thought we are building an encyclopedia here. And this topic is clearly not encyclopedic. Since it is not encyclopedic, it is irrelevant how well the article is written, how referenced, how popular, etc. Taku (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC) To elaborate on why this is not encyclopedic, the problem of this kind of the article is that people wouldn't be talking about this in just a couple of years. An encyclopedia, such as this one, is not a place for topics that are only news-worthy. -- Taku (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to the deletion review, so editors can see the case for overturning the previous deletion. Geometry guy 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That makes more sense. -- Taku (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I say that because the offending article, was international news, was on all news media channels on the web and tv, across the western world. That makes it notable as a cultural event. The article needs cleaned, sourced,....scope_creep (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability isn't established for my money. In a couple of years no-one will care about this, bringing WP:RECENT into the equation. Docta247 (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete For reasons cited by Docta247 and nominator. this shameful article has been on my radar for a while. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - so let me get this straight. A few people didn't read what they were signing up for properly and as a result got detailed bills rather than consolidated ones. Sorry I can see of no reason why this should be encyclopaedic. Ben W Bell   talk  13:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT not a repository for stale water-cooler stories., or for billing disputes. A celebrity wanna-be, Justine Ezarik, requested detailed  bills, made thousands of text messages, and got a suitable long bill printout. Then she created a video showing how long the bill was and got a week's worth of news coverage. Wikipedia is not a "news of the week" or "cool water cooler story" or "YouTube Review" site. Per WP:NOT, "News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." This incident has not shown any significant long-term encyclopedic nature. Edison (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You have quote mined that policy section to support your position, while ignoring this: "Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial." Also this part, while not applicable to this article explains what WP:NOT is really about: "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.[5]" This section was recently added to the policy by Jimbo Wales in this diff to address a BLP issue. It was not intended to be used in the way you have.Dhaluza (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge reduced version to iPhone. It's clearly not something suitable for its own article, but the press attention it received and the effect (if any) it had on billing is totally suitable in the iPhone article, assuming it can be included briefly in a one or two paragraph note. - Mgm|(talk) 15:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge agree with above's suggestion.
 * Merging has been suggested before. The logical merge target is AT&T mobility not iPhone because the bill was generated by AT&T not Apple. But it would be completely out of context there as well. Dhaluza (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete NOT encyclopedic whatsoever.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with iPhone.  Tiddly - Tom  17:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - well sourced. May not be encyclopedic, but sure is notable. Rudget . talk  17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't consider it encyclopedic then what does it matter that it is well sourced? --Fredrick day (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions.   —Dhaluza (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions.   —Dhaluza (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and Docta247. A glich in AT&T's system, even if it got some publicity for a week or so, is not notable enough. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the nomination is based on a WP:ATA ball vision of future notability cloaked as a novel interpretation of encyclopedic suitability. WP:N only considers objective evidence of notability and properly dismisses editors' personal opinions. This article is way over the top in terms of evidence of Notability per that guideline. But some people just don't get it, and attack this article, without clearing the threshold of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Dhaluza (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is necessary that every article in wikipedia is about a notable topic, and we all agree. But are you saying that every notable topic is a candidate for an article here? Are you really? Since what topic is considered encyclopedic is based on editors' personal opinions, the opinions are ones that count here not the notability. Hence, this AfD, since the interpretation of the inclusion guidelines is not in question. -- Taku (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we should delete articles if enough editors don't like it enough to gang up on it at AfD based only on their personal opinions, and without regard to wider consensus in the form of policies and guidelines? Are you really? Don't content creators have a right to demand that the community uphold it's written standards for inclusion, without allowing mob-rule. Dhaluza (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Mgm. Cheers, JöиÁ†ĥăИ — Quality, not quantity. 18:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Its crystal balling deciding today, what people reading Wikipedia in the future will be interested in. Its notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject received coverage from multiple national and international news sources, and resulted in AT&T and Apple changing their policies. Additionally, arguing that something may not be notable in the future is not a reasonable argument for deletion - this is a crystal-ball AfD, which, as Dhaluza says, is not equivalent to encyclopaedicity. No-one these days talks about Zoe Karbonopsina; does that mean she doesn't deserve an article? Laïka  18:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability should indeed be based on objective evidence not subjective judgements. The admin who closed the AfD as "delete" initially objected to the DRV, but eventually concluded that the article should be merged or kept. The keep recommendation reads (in part):
 * Keep, only if Justine Ezarik is merged and redirected to this article, because as the nominator of the DRV rightly points out, Ezarik is not notable outside this event per WP:BLP1E.
 * I believe this is the essential point: Justine Ezarik is the article which should really be under AfD scrutiny. She is essentially only notable for her role in this story. The story is clearly notable, but is it encyclopedic? Well, Wikipedia is not paper and so things can change, but at the moment I do not see a case for deleting this article. It seems to me that those who have looked into this story in detail, including the main author and the closing admins of both the AfD and the DRV, have concluded that it is both notable and encyclopedic. I find their consensus compelling. Geometry guy 23:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The assertion that Justine Ezarik is not notable apart from this event did not attract consensus at that AfD or the DRV. Justine Ezarik has ample notability per WP:N separate and apart from this event. In fact, it only gets a brief mention in her bio, which has much more material on her lifecasting activities. Dhaluza (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That does depend upon what you mean by brief. The bio is pretty short, and the discussion of the i-phone bill is the most meaty paragraph in terms of content and citations to reliable sources. The article does try quite hard to be more about her lifecasting than her video, but the sources don't really support such a slant. For one thing, almost all of them postdate the i-phone bill story. If you took the i-phone bill and associated publicity out, the case for notability would be rather weak.
 * Possibly it would be a good idea to have an AfD discussing both articles simultaneously: that might generate a solution which would be stable for a while. Geometry guy 20:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two full-length bio features in mainstream international newspapers cited at Justine Ezarik that were published before the iPhone bill video, so she met the requirements of WP:BIO then, and your assertion is demonstrably false. Furthermore, there are additional bio features since, including the NYT and WSJ no less, that deal primarily with her lifecasting. So that article is also over-the-top in terms of objective notability. Multiple RS have decided to do bio features on her over a period of time, all unrelated to this video, so your suggestion to have another combined AfD is pointless. Dhaluza (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for Laïka. The article stands well on its own and I see no way the article could be merged without losing context. Graham 87 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's a news story with nothing about it happening in the past three months - that is, it's a glorified news article. Merge, if possible, into iPhone Will (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'll be honest, I hate the fact that something like this is notable. When I first saw that it was deleted, I danced. When it was restored, I cried (just a bit). When it was nominated for Good Article status, I did the first review. Rather than take that as a chance to extract "revenge" on something I hated, however, I reviewed WP:N and decided that it was, indeed, notable. The best thing that could be done, then, was to take advantage of a user who was willing to do what it took to make this article "good" and, well, make the article "good," which I think they did a fantastic job of. I don't need to point out that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, as it's been done numerous times already, but I do point out that it currently meets all the criteria for notability. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," which, like or not (personally I fall into the "not" category), is met with this article. I rue the day that this topic would be found in, say, a regular encyclopedia, but this not a regular encyclopedia. It is a modern construct designed to adapt to a modern world and its rapid changes. Love it or hate it, these "pop culture" banalities are what people find newsworthy and notable these days. You say that it is irrelevant how well the article the article is referenced, but I wholly disagree. The number and, far more importantly, quality of the references is a large part of what determines whether this is notable or not. We may not like the system, we may hate the fact that the system allows for this, but we have objective standards for inclusion for a reason. If it fails the criteria in a year, then it does, and I have no qualms about it disappearing, but I see no reason to delete a well-sourced, well-written article that has a very strong, although perhaps not foolproof, claim to notability. Cheers, CP 05:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - whew @ the reference list. If someone is concerned that this is a flash in the pan, then let's wait and find out. It can always be nominated at a later date. In the meantime, this would appear to be rather informative on its topic. - jc37 (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Whether or not an article is "encyclopedic" is in general a subjective judgement. I do not see anything to disqualify this article based on WP:NOT, and the article is definitely notable, based on the number of quality references. Whether or not the article would be in a paper encyclopedia is irrelevant, because if that was a deciding factor, likely a large majority of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted. &mdash;Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 14:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ding! That was the sound of her 15 minutes of fame being up. Delete. --Calton | Talk 15:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Slippery slope. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2007 (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.