Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. It's already mentioned at Justine Ezarik which is enough. ELIMINATORJR 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300-page iPhone bill

edit
300-page_iPhone_bill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

article is recency, no nobility. it is just an anti-at&t rant, and even if it wasnt it doesnt deserve to be in an encyclopedia, none-the-less deserve its own article. Its also just a video, theres millions of videos on the internet. LightSpeed3 01:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree Merge with iPhone article. A viral video from some teenager should not have a dedicated Wikipedia entry. I vote for the article to be modified to remove references to a specific video and just focus on AT&T and their (then) billing procedures. A sentence like "many AT&T customers expressed their dissatisfaction on the Internet" would suffice. — (edited) mattrobs 01:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable in the grand scheme of things. Taylor 09:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main iPhone article. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it is really appropriate to merge this with the iPhone article because it isn't about the phone, it's really about the service. So the logical merge target would be t AT&T, but that is really not appropriate either. Dhaluza 08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I too believe that this is not notable. It is also a one-time incident, and shouldn't be looked at as a precedence for how AT&T or Apple does business. People shouldn't be creating articles that is a blip in the world monitor, and that people will forget about it within a week. Groink 00:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Notability is primarily established by whether or not there are multiple reliable sources documenting the topic, in this case there are. This article supports WP:A very well. There are articles on similar memes, (e.g. Series of tubes), that provide useful encyclopedic information about them. — Craigtalbert 14:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too minor a topic of no longer term value. Jschuur 20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. The issue was quickly taken care of by AT&T. It is no longer an issue. We shouldn't be creating articles of past mistakes made by companies; although some believe mistakes are notable, they're not encyclopedic as adding mistakes to an encyclopedia is a permanent mark that the company doesn't deserve to have. Groink 22:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And let's not forget this chick who, for some unknown reason, has made it it in a dedicated encyclopedia entry for a video on YouTube! Sign me up, why don't you? — mattrobs 05:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that it was quickly addressed by AT&T makes it more notable. Things that lead to long term changes in public policy or perception are significant. 08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason to simply delete a VfD. Please follow the proper process. Jschuur 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 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 WP:NOT#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." Edison 02:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is the crux of the argument right there. — mattrobs 02:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOT#NEWS is for topics that are only receive news coverage for a "brief period of time" which is not defined, but usually means only one or two news cycles. Topics like this that get picked up from one news story, which triggers other independent news stories, and follow-up stories over a period of are more than just the "flash in a pan" that NOT#NEWS covers. In addition to the news coverage, there were also related articles in trade publications dealing with the issue from a broader perspective. And we have a long term change away from paper billing as a result which confers long-term significance. Also the statement that she requested the detailed billing is incorrect, detailed billing was the default option for AT&T when no preference was given, and this is what changed as a result Dhaluza 10:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I too fail to see any historic notability as required by WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx. Maybe merge a tiny mention in the main iPhone article 04:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Or Merge to AT&T or iPhone. 123 This has had enough of an effect on people that AT&T went out of their way to announce that they were going to use summarized bills, and news outlets went out of their way to make significant articles about them switching. This is definitely notable to the iPhone and/or AT&T, however it hasn't been around long enough to really prove notability either way. If in a few months, it's still being referenced in jokes, or heaven forbid, seriously, it will definitely be notable, as it is now it's a gray area --lucid 06:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also merge to iPhone or AT&T is not appropriate per my comment above. Dhaluza 08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let the record state that Dhaluza was the initial author of the article. See here. Nothing implied, though. Also, with "one person's reaction to an obviously extreme example", no one cares about that one person. Why is she so important? Because it was the first YouTube video to talk about the issue? Keep the article, remove her. — mattrobs 02:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a WP:IDONTCARE argument, but to answer the question, she is important because multiple independent secondary sources say so, which is the WP standard for Notability. The internet video became a meme, which brought the issue to the attention of the mainstream media, and she was prominently featured in the extensive coverage, so there is no reason to "remove her". Dhaluza 11:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; 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 WP:NN. 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. Laïka 10:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. —Dhaluza 11:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. —Dhaluza 11:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 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. Graham87 12:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article appears to be well-sourced and contains some level of useful (and slightly humorous) information about a well known product. Arguments against the article appear to be based on the article's perceived historic notability. It seems to be a case of "It's not historically significant now, so let's delete the article and wait five years to see if it builds notability." Verifiability supersedes notability in Wikipedia inclusion, while the latter is dictated by the quantity of the former. There are enough secondary sources to warrant its verifiability and subsequent notability, even if it is just a "blip in the world monitor." —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 12:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP is not the place for news, no matter how notable. 15 minutes of fame doesn't cut it. Bearian 16:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-sourced with many "mainstream" publications. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well sourced, plainly notable, and, given its length and depth, a merge makes absolutely no sense. Were this to develop the other way around, assuming it didn't, in the iPhone article, it would definitely be a candidate to be split into a new article over its length. MrZaiustalk 19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for cluttering several of the categories. Gabriel Kielland 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For all you people saying that it should be merged with the iPhone article, it does not fit in with it at all. The iPhone article is about the iPhone itself and its properties, while this article is about the subject of a viral video and the reaction to it. Also, like MANY others on this page have said, it is very well-sourced.CheckeredFlag200 22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into iPhone#Release or delete. A paragraph on this is more than sufficient. The rote repetition of this news throughout the enormous technology media does not justify the bloated, lumbering article under examination here. —ptk✰fgs 00:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor incident with little long-term importance; it doesn't fit into IPhone article, either.--Gloriamarie 21:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well referenced, and well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The problem has already been fixed. Although it may have captured the attention of the Internet for a few weeks, I do not think that it's quite worthy as its own article. It's not significant enough to allow it to have its own article. Merge with the iPhone article. Otherwise, it's well written and well referenced. - XX55XX 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That the problem that was the initial catalyst was fixed does not diminish notability--Notability is not temporary, and there is no need for the level of interest to be maintained. The article documents a short period of history that is the unexpected confluence of many different things: backlash from the iPhone hype, the contrast between corporate practices at Apple Inc. and AT&T, the conservation ethic and viral video activism, etc. It's also a case study in the interplay of technology and society. Because it addresses many different topics, it is not a suitable merge candidate for any one of them. Per WP:MERGE, duplicate, overlapping, short or out of context pages are merged for the benefit of the reader. Pages should not be merged based on a novel concept of "worthiness" Dhaluza 04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a fantastic article...with all kinds of links to blogs and stuff, but I wish it was little more about the BILL. Like, what does the bill think about all this publicity? Does the bill have any future plans in show business? Does the bill have a music album coming out soon? I'd really like more information about the BILL. I mean, the video has some GREAT shots of the bill, but it was a little blurry at times. There was a really great slow-motion shot of the bill at the end of the video that was almost dreamlike and it was like the bill was floating in mid-air, but then some woman came into the frame and ruined the video. I'd like a little more in-depth coverage of the bill. And can we get a GFDL-licensed picture of the bill without that woman in the frame? She's a little distracting. What kind of box did the bill come in? What weight was the paper? Was it alabaster or off-white? Was the font on the bill sans-serif? Did the bill contain any recycled paper? Can we find out which region the trees came from that were turned into the paper that the bill was printed on? What kind of ink are we talking about here? Where is the bill now? I think this article is great but I think we really need to focus on the topic at hand. Generic52 04:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well written and referenced and this article must be separated from the iPhone article. --Joseph Solis in Australia 08:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pronto :Wikipedia is not a soapbox- Gilliam 09:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to the fact that it is sourced, and big enough, there is no way to cram it back into the iPhone page. • Lawrence Cohen 13:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems to me that the event is notable, given the amount of media attention it received. The article is well-documented as well. It's a detailed enough situation to merit an article and could conceivably be of interest to the casual reader (I'm an example of that). Blade 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above. The number of sources makes a borderline article worth keeping. Random89 23:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hardly noteworthy. Rehevkor 15:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant details with the iPhone article, and delete the rest. Wikipedia is not Wikinews, people. AT&T screwed up their printed billing, big fucking deal. -/- Warren 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. weak for the fact, I do not live in the US and only discovered this page when it was nominated for a DYK. considering the companies concerned have not given her credit for the video, I would say fancruft just sums it all up as I feel these pages are just there to make her more famous. Willirennen 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me paraprase my comments above to assure you this is not fancruft as you assert--I was interested in this subject as a case study in technology and society. Also the company's denial is absurd on its face, but I can't say that in the article, because it would be OR. But do you really believe AT&T actually planned in advance to drop detailed billing as the defauly option one month after releasing the iPhone? Dhaluza 02:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/300-page_iPhone_bill&oldid=1137523143"