Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Service availability


 * 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   redirect to Service Availability Forum. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Service availability

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article defines phrase in way used only by a single trade organisation, the Service Availability Forum, that does not agree with standard usage. Xnn (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with the nom. It's possible we could have an article on service availability as the phrase is normally used but it would still need to be vetted as a notable topic; Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY.  But this is not even that.  Further, this article's hijacking the term for proprietary use pretty much guarantees that all the sources would have to be WP:PRIMARY.  Msnicki (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge Why wouldn't this article be merged into "High-Availability"? The subject is simply a questionably-standard term used for an extreme extension of high availability. The concept may deserve coverage, but only as a subset of high availability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtechm (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Service Availability Forum. Material already included there. No evidence of independent notability. --Kvng (talk) 12:47, 9 August 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.