Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jessica.OC/One Call Insurance

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Jessica.OC/One Call Insurance


I have had this article on my watchlist since I saw it in recent changes. The account appears to be SPA or promo (OC=One Call?); the only edits it's made are to this miscellany, and a RFC on this miscellany that no one thought important enough to respond to. This article has been tagged as being under construction for three months, and hasn't been edited since then. I know that that in itself isn't necessarily a reason for deletion, but the article would never make it in mainspace...it would likely be CSDed under G11  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 3 months is not an extraordinarily long time - If I recall correctly, practice has generally used a six month or longer period of grace. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that it should be deleted anyway because it's clearly G11. I also challenge you to find you to find evidence that a QDable article is allowed to be in userspace for six months, and would note to the closing admin that the user has voted "keep" in almost all MfDs or AfDs he's commented in  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can find no evidence that a user is allowed the six months you speak of. It doesn't appear to be on User pages.  I did read that if a user is inactive for three months (which this user is), she can be considered inactive.  And furthermore, since the article is QDable, it could have been deleted after zero months  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a stale Request for Feedback for this article which was never answered. That might have dissuaded the author from continuing to work on it. It's not a G11 from where I'm sitting (tone problems, yes, and likely COI, but not solely advertising copy) and there are claims to notability. With a small amount of effort it could take its chances in articlespace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Chris on this one. -DJSasso (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.