Deletion of 300-page iPhone bill

Comment: WP:N|Notability is primarily established by whether or not there are multiple |reliable sources documenting the topic, in this case there are. This article supports  very well. There are articles on similar memes, (e.g. Series of tubes), that provide useful encyclopedic information about them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:A)

Comment: I too fail to see any historic notability as required by #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: as #NEWS|WP is not the place for news, no matter how notable.  15 minutes of fame doesn't cut it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: She requested detailed printed out 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: To be honest when I found this article on the Main Page I thought "huh? How does this deserve an article?" But I found that the subject was mentioned in enough |reliable secondary sources to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Time will tell how notable it really is ... maybe other phone companies around the world have taken notice of the 300-page phone bill and will modify their policies accordingly when the iPhone is released in other countries besides the US or when other phones with similar capabilities are released
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: while viral videos are always something of a gray topic, this one definitely passes all the notability criterion; it has sources that have: 1) Significant coverage: entire articles have been devoted to it in magazine and newspapers. 2) Reliability: these are major, in many cases national, newspapers (USA Today, Daily Mail). 3) Sources; all are secondary, as requested in . 4) Independent; Despite being about a blog and a viral video, the article avoids falling into the trap of using these as sources. As a result, I see no reason why it should be deleted. This video is at least the rest of :Category:YouTube videos, and much better sourced
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN)

Comment: the main topic, and the related items, were the prime subject of multiple reliable source works by multiple authors over a period of time, and the story was covered outside the U.S. even though the iPhone is not available outside the U.S, so the notability argument in the nom is completely unfounded. The article is not an AT&T rant, it deals with a specific issue (paper billing), and one person's reaction to an obviously extreme example of it that became a catalyst for change. As far as the "it's just a video, there's millions of them on the Internet" that's not an argument at all--just because the vast majority don't merit an article, that does not mean this particular one does not--it has established notability based on reliable sources which is the WP standard. Also the article is not just about the video, it also addresses related topics. The nom, and the supporting comments fail to rise above the level of . Also merge to iPhone or AT&T is not appropriate per my comment above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)