"
1) I asked you what actual contributions you've made to her articles besides your pointless edits and I constructive edits to the lead? 2) The whole WP:UNDUE is about going with what the majority of critics use instead of a select few. Let's pretend articles are critics shall we? 98% of critics use ""composition"", 2% use ""content"". Now by following those guidelines, you would have to use composition? If you want, I have plenty of other users that will agree with me here. Using content might work on relatively unknown articles, but all the articles that millions of people see, and that actually matter, we use composition. 3) That little content section you made was a shitty copy and paste job from compositions that I've created (every single one of them, from pages which I've also written the majority of if not all of them), you didn't even include the others or put a construction banner to show you were still working on it. Also, you divided it from 1-9 and 10-19? What in the world were you thinking? Even for double disk articles we don't do that, articles are treated as a single body of work. So no, I didn't remove your content section becaus of the title, I removed it because it was messy, incoherent, uncompleted mess that shone a bad light onto the article. 
Note: Your entire reason behind your proposed title is your own opinion, so I'd be advised to drop that argument.   "