Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Service-ability

: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 Userfied. to User:Herbkr/Service-ability. In this case, given the difficulties the article creator has had and their apparent good faith (see discussion on their talkpage), I've chosen to IAR and close this early. More sources may be available after the book is published in October. If anyone thinks I've overstepped here, I won't contest an MfD applied to the userpage; however I'd suggest not biting the newbies too hard... Yunshui 雲‍水 08:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

=[[Service-ability]]=

:{{la|Service-ability}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Service-ability Stats])

:({{Find sources|Service-ability}})

Non-mainstream Neologism. Prod removed by author. reddogsix (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete: The article turns out not to be about a term, but a book. However, it does not seem to meet the criteria of WP:NBOOK, nor does it seem to qualify for presumption under WP:GNG. Plus, the way it was written (and the fact that the author joined, seemingly to write this article) put it borderline for WP:G11. -- BenTels (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - might benefit, if nothing else, from the addition of (book) after the current title. That said, looks like it might struggle to meet WP:GNG, so that might be a moot point. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

: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.