Talk:Section B

Untitled

Proposed Deletion Of Article - Section B

The following is a response to the proposed deletion of the article Section B.

A. This contributor disagrees with the proposed deletion for the following reasons -

1. The article is an informative history and reflection on a group that played a prominent role in the town for over 30 years.

2. The article contains numerous accounts from members of the group, with local knowledge and understanding at the time.

3. The more publicised events are substantiated with links/references to the various media they are reported in.

B. The objector claims the article should be deleted on the grounds of it being "an unreferenced article and highly contentious content". This contributor would answer these claims with the following -

1. "An unreferenced article" - Because some may see the article as having sensitive content, just as a journalist may not always disclose his sources the article contains personal accounts and as in point A2 above - local knowledge and understanding. As in point A3 above, more publicised events do have links to the media they were reported in - however this contributor does acknowledge that more use of this facility should be employed at the foot of the article where references could be shown.

2. "Highly contentious content" - By the very nature of the article and its content, some may see that as contentious - is the objection then based on the accuracy of the content or the subject matter? If it is the former - refer to point B1 and A1 - A3 above - this contributor feels there is a balance required between the need for personal accounts and linked/referenced material. If it is the latter, then whilst the subject matter may not be to all tastes, that then is a matter of personal opinion.

This contributor does however recognise that due to the content, the article may be subject to inaccuracies and indeed vandalism. Wikipedia state they are "a work in progress" - this article is no different - therefore unsubstantiated entries made where it is clear they are a misrepresentation of fact and/or blatant vandalism are edited out. Perhaps the objector is concerned with this issue - so too is this contributor! - Case in point being 4 acts of vandalism by unknown authors on 4th Sept, 5th Oct, 21st Oct and as recently as 5th November (interestingly the objector made their request for deletion of the article soon after the last act of vandalism on 5th November!).

Whilst this contributor does not claim the article to be the perfect work, deleting the article would ignore a subject that many could identify with through experience or contact, ignore media and press reports on the subject and give in to those contributors who seek to undermine the article and indeed Wikipedia by contributing inaccuracies and vandalism. In the interests of the subject matter and indeed Wikipedia, I therefore propose that the article be retained and improvements be made as detailed above.

Centre Stand - November 8th 2010.

Centre Stand (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion Of Article - Section B

Interestingly, the objector to the article -

1. Uses what some might observe as a "highly contentious" username (and has had to defend this issue).

2. Chose to edit the article (by deleting a factual statement) on 5th November, BEFORE proposing to delete the article.

3. Deleted 95% of the content INCLUDING referenced/linked material.

In the spirit of Wikipedia, surely articles should be left in place before a final decision is made on whether it be retained or deleted?! A proposer who edits an article then removes 95% of its content simply on a "proposal to delete" only has, in this contributors opinion, vandalized the project and compromised the integrity of the process.

Centre Stand (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

| con = Centre Stand | condate = {{subst:Current20101108}} | conreason = Objection to Proposal to delete article - Section B. Article contains historical facts and references (although this could be improved) and view of "highly contentious content" may be a personal opinion of the proposer. }} Centre Stand (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of article - decision to "keep"

Given the correct decision to keep the article, this contributor will review the content, make improvements and rebuild it in due course.

Centre Stand (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Section B. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150412205802/http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/angus-the-mearns/rab-douglas-forced-to-defend-himself-after-pitch-invasion-by-airdrie-fans-1.862996 to http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/angus-the-mearns/rab-douglas-forced-to-defend-himself-after-pitch-invasion-by-airdrie-fans-1.862996

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)