Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kamila.tavarez/John Stith Pemberton

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Kamila.tavarez/John Stith Pemberton

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

The only important work of its creator, this is an obvious breach of WP:UPCOPIES. Sundostund (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as a stale userspace draft. It looks like helpful attempts were made to try and improve the mainspace article but were ultimately abandoned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the argument made below about WikiEd. I am all for getting rid of blatant vandalism, and have to agree that these nominations are pushing towards the disruptive line. More research should have been made to look and see if this draft was made in good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Blank if necessary but don't delete. With this nomination we appear to continuing the daily crusade against any user page or user subpage which seems to link to the Confederacy. NOCONFEDERATES does NOT apply here. This is a user sandbox performed in full cooperation with WikiEd activity. Do we regularly delete sandboxes of WikiEd students who have otherwise done nothing wrong? Wouldn't WikiEd prefer to have previous users' work available for later WikiEd research on student activity? Have we chosen to delete content from other student user sandboxes from this class? Or just this one? BusterD (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The creator was basically a student editor under Education program who probably was tasked with improving the said article (Link to their class page). Whether or not it gets deleted, I felt the need to point out that the following pages are completely dependent on the nominated page:


 * I would note that hundreds if not thousands of such pages are likely to exist. In my opinion, we need a larger discussion surrounding what to do with such stale student drafts, not bring them one by one to MfD. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And per BusterD, Keep, as long as this sole nomination is concerned. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I concur with the statement by User:CX Zoom above, and expand their suggestion we need a broader discussion about this nibbling away at Wikipedia page history, deleting user subpages in general, not just those in cooperation with the WikiEd program. BusterD (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per BusterD and CX Zoom.--🌈WaltCip - (talk)  13:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to John Stith Pemberton - Not a draft, but the same rationale applies as for speedy redirect from draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2022 (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.