Deletion of Justine Ezarik

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: It saddens me to admit that the amount of sourcing demands that we keep this completely moronic article. I honestly believe that we should |ignore the letter of the law in this case and admit that this is |inherited notability. Otherwise, it's setting a dangerous precedent
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:N)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: per #NEWS and  per the essays Wikipedia:Recentism and NEWS, or '''Merge''' to the article about the actual bill,300-page iPhone bill which is apparently the only claim this individual has to fame, besides being a runnerup in a talent show. The article 300-page iPhone bill was deleted after an AFD, then restored after a DRV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:drv#9_September_2007 . The bill which resulted from her accepting the default of detailed printed billing, then making thousands of text messages, then (amazingly) receiving exactly the bill she should have expected, then seeking fame by making a video about it. How many articles does Wikipedia need about one phone bill received by one individual? If someone requested junk mail from every conceivable source, then got an email inbox or real life mailbox full of junk mail, and it became a watercooler story for a few days, they would not be entitled to a permanent encyclopedia entry, and neither is she
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I agree that she does not seem notable enough for an article of her own. Strictly judging the article on its own notability, it just doesn't seem to qualify. It seems like an advertisement for her 24-hour broadcast of herself and I don't really see that changing. That's my complete reason, and I'm not going to make this into a #What_about_article_x.3F| argument because that's not necessary, but the winner of the Yahoo contest does not have an article; getting a $300 Iphone bill, while garnering attention of the news outlets for one or two slow news cycles, does not make you inherently notable enough for an encyclopedia entry on yourself (and I believe the $300 IPhone bill article has been deleted also, so that's not notable by itself, either). Recently I voted on the deletion nomination of a Harvard scientist who is winner of a MacArthur genius grant award; most people voting agreed that this award itself did not make the subject notable (although I disagreed).  If a person who receives the prestigious MacArthur genius grant is not notable enough for Wikipedia editors, why would a person placing second in a Yahoo video contest meet the qualifications? The only reason the article on the Yahoo video contest appears is because it's her local, hometown newspaper
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)