Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Section B

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section B

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Unreferenced article & highly contentious content, dubious notability. E. Fokker (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The article is woeful, and needs to be stripped back to the bare minimum. However, the Section B does seem to have have broad news coverage, including in the bbc [1]. I could be happy to delete until someone is prepared to write an article based on sourced information. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article need fairly extensive, it's notable. scope_creep (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Section B means millions of things, is this the primary topic, or should it be a dab page, or redirect to some other article? (which if this article is kept, would be renamed with a disambiguated title) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the main contributor to the article Section B, I will take the points made above and answer them accordingly -

Original objector and proposer for deletion E. Fokker - Ironically, this objector uses a username of a "highly contentious" nature - already the subject of debate on their usertalk page. A hypocritical stance then one might say? Whilst I agree that the article could be better referenced through notes at the foot of it in relation to the external media links etc.. the point remains though the article may be uncomfortable for some, I am curious to know what, if any knowledge E Fokker has on the subject (example being the removal of a statement of fact on 5th November). E. Fokker is probably concerned with the numerous acts of vandalism that have taken place in the last couple of months (dubious notability). This user is too - and these acts have been removed. E. Fokker's comments come over as personal distaste for the article rather than subjective criticism alone. On that basis there are no grounds for deletion but grounds for improvement in the article, as mentioned in this paragraph.

Clovis Sangrail - This username's assertion that the article is "woeful" and needs to be stripped back is a highly personal view and not worthy of a reply. I ask the question - why does this user make personal attacks on the content of an article when I suspect they have little or no knowledge/interest on the subject matter that is indeed of much interest to many people?! I am pleased however that this user recognises that even the great and mighty BBC (the most authoritative source in the land no less!!) recognise the Section B, and as above I would be comfortable improving the references/sources and links in the article where possible.

Scope_creep - This user acknowledges that in order for the article to be notable it needs to be the length that it is.

76.66.203.138 - The user is correct in saying that Section B can mean many things, and so I am comfortable with the clarification of the title if the article is kept.

Centre Stand (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2010 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.