Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill (3rd 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 Speedy Keep: obvious case of misinterpretation of WP:NOTE and/or a case of WP:POINT. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300-page iPhone bill

Strong Delete This is an article about an unimportant subject. The Talking Mac (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - The subject more than meets the requirements of WP:N--"unimportant" is a subjective judgment, and not sufficient grounds for deletion. Dhaluza (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete not notableSpartansuit (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are using a different definition of notable than the one used on Wikipedia. From WP:N:
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

* "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.…

-- Dhaluza (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Special:Contributions/Spartansuit User's only other contributions have been vandalism. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Dhaluza (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. One, two, and now three nominations to delete, and yet the article remains well-referenced, well-written, and even - dare we say - substantially notable. While no doubt embarrassing to Apple and AT&T, this video (and its creator, and the issue it focuses upon) has received coverage on or in ABC News, PC World and other reliable sources. The article seems rather massive upon first glance, but I believe a lot of that bulk is an unfortunate necessity considering the fanatical POV-pushers involved in most "iArticles". While the title is somewhat lacking, this is the fault of the video's creator, not the article's. --Badger Drink (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it turns out this is a WP:POINT nomination. Wonderful! --Badger Drink (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Has consensus really changed that much since last nom one month ago? Whether important or not is not at issue, it is notable. I hope this is not a case of WP:POINT (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trojan Balllistics Suit of Armor). DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. Seems to be a WP:POINT nom per DoubleBlue. --Smashville^BONK! 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "unimportant"? The article seems to be exceedingly well-referenced and meets the notability requirements; what policy or guideline does WP:UNIMPORTANT fall under? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:40, 29 December 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.