Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Easter Bradford

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was delete. There is no such thing as quorum on MFD, and if nobody objects there probably isn't much of a problem with deletion. This user hasn't edited for over two years, and this is simply a copy of an article in userspace. >Radiant< 11:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Orthogonal/non-famous person

Curious problem here. User:Orthogonal (now a former user) made this page way back in 2003, apparently as a draft for an article on Easter Bradford. Last August it was vandalized by anonymous users, and flagged as an A7 attack page by Midnightguinea this morning. On first glance I rejected the speedy, reverting the vandalism. However it wad then pointed out to me that we have an article at James Bradford which appears to be about the same individual, written at a later date with better sourcing. The Orthogonal draft also included a section on the 'Tori Amos' controversy which was wholly unsourced, which I have blanked for the duration of this MFD. I have no problem with deleting this draft article provided it was never used for writing the current article; if so, page history will need to be merged. -- nae'blis 16:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Orthogonal draft was def. NOT used for the current James Bradford article. This came to my attention because I recently purchased one of Bradford's albums and found my way into his Wiki article. There was a previous article for "Easter Bradford" written on or around 2003, before Bradford had any accomplishments which would really warrant a Wikipdia article. There were a chain of insignificant articles branching from it, all of which were voted for deletion (and subsequently deleted.) The "Non Famous Person" page on Orthogonal's talk pages was apparently created during that deletion and voting process, but has since become a respository for potentially libelous claims and gossip. Bradford has only recently risen to enough notability to have had a wiki-article created about him again (which was again nominated for deletion but this time the vote was to KEEP.) The problem is that contained within the page history of the Orthogonal article are the same potentially libelous statements (or variations upon them.) As far as I can tell there is no content in "User:Orthogonal/non-famous person" which merits merging into the current James Bradford article. The only current sources for the biographical information come from Bradford's own web page, which is not sufficient as a source. In conclusion I still posit that the best solution is the complete deletion of the Orthogonal article, including it's entire history, without change to the current "James Bradford" article. (As Bradford's notability increases or declines I feel his article will be altered accordingly in the natural spirit of Wikipedia.) Midnightguinea 22:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as unsourced per
  Nardman1 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• RELISTING to generate more consensus. ^
  [omg plz] 05:30, 10 April 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.