I would also agree that, if challenged, it's primarily up to those demanding inclusion to convince others. There are limits to this, of course, as when those advocating removing content have a poor rationale for doing so, but ultimately the burden of evidence is on the one arguing for inclusion.
I think there are good reasons for this. As a general principle, it helps when dealing with edits that are questionable for numerous reasons, such as BLP issues and possible hoaxes. It helped me deal with what was likely a malicious editor trying to falsely attribute certain beliefs to a particular theologian. Sxeptomaniac
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:04:31 -0400 From: "David Goodman" Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Scary...
Examine Tony's statement earlier in the thread: "I agree 100% If I can't convince anybody that something belongs in Wikipedia, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia." He doesnt say "convince everybody" Read literally, if any unbiased editor will support something, it should stay in, just as we don't ban a user if any one administrator is willing to unblock him.
More practically, it would require the consent of the community to remove material. The only other way of reading it, is that it means, convince everybody--but there wont be any content at all left on controversial subjects if we do that. So I suppose he means consensus. I agree with him that the removal of good-faith material should require prior consensus.