Deletion of 300-page iPhone bill (second nomination)

Comment: the nomination is based on a #CRYSTAL ball vision of future notability cloaked as a novel interpretation of encyclopedic suitability.  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 'TLIKEIT
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA||WP:N||WP:IDON)

Comment: Whether or not an article is "encyclopedic" is in general a subjective judgement. I do not see anything to disqualify this article based on , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Notability isn't established for my money. In a couple of years no-one will care about this, bringing  into the equation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: Wikipedia is #NEWS 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 #NEWS, "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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)