"The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"
Thoughts?
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
"The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"
Thoughts?
Yes, agree. Well, partly. I believe that if you *start* an article, you ought to have the sourcing in front of you. All articles require sourcing, and should have it. So, if you start one, it is highly preferred, you add a source for your assertions/statements.
On Monday 10 March 2008 20:26, Screamer wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
"The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"
Thoughts?
Yes, agree. Well, partly. I believe that if you *start* an article, you ought to have the sourcing in front of you.
Why?
All articles require sourcing, and should have it.
No, they don't.
You only need to provide a source for (a) direct quotes, and (b) a claim made in the article that is being challenged.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Monday 10 March 2008 20:26, Screamer wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
"The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"
Thoughts?
Yes, agree. Well, partly. I believe that if you *start* an article, you ought to have the sourcing in front of you.
Why?
So that we can guard against publishing original research and original thought. This is what I believe all articles require sourcing. Everything should be verifiable, and to that extent, probably ought to be verified.
All articles require sourcing, and should have it.
No, they don't.
You only need to provide a source for (a) direct quotes, and (b) a claim made in the article that is being challenged.
I stand corrected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
./scream
Excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
"...If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk_page. Alternatively, you may tag a sentence by adding the {{fact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Refimprove}} or {{unreferenced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unreferenced}}. Use the edit summary to give an explanation of your edit. You may also leave a note on the talk page or an invisible HTML comment on the article page..."
./scream
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Monday 10 March 2008 20:26, Screamer wrote:
All articles require sourcing, and should have it.
No, they don't.
You only need to provide a source for (a) direct quotes, and (b) a claim made in the article that is being challenged.
The rule too is for verifiability, and verifiability is a much lower standard than verified. If everybody believes that there exists a reliable source out there, it is verifiable.
Ec
On 3/11/08, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
All articles require sourcing, and should have it.
No, they don't.
I'm amazed that after what, 7 years of Wikipedia, this point is still open for discussion. I've tried to get consensus several times on when sourcing is required, but there is none. You're both right.
Steve
Bass ackwards. Remedial education for some admins appears to be in order! ;-) I'm sure he'd reword that on consideration.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
"The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"
Thoughts?
Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Can you get a link to this diff? Context might prove him correct (ie. if you want to add material, you need to gain "consensus" for it in some cases, so burden of proof is with you), although at face value I'm with Nathan.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Bass ackwards. Remedial education for some admins appears to be in order! ;-) I'm sure he'd reword that on consideration.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
"The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008
(UTC)"
Thoughts?
Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Monday 10 March 2008 20:31, Alex G wrote:
Can you get a link to this diff? Context might prove him correct (ie. if you want to add material, you need to gain "consensus" for it in some cases, so burden of proof is with you), although at face value I'm with Nathan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%...
It was on an AfD, not an article talk page--it's not someone trying to add a controversial statement to an article.
On 11/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
"The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"
Thoughts?
I agree 100% If I can't convince anybody that something belongs in Wikipedia, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
On 3/10/08, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I agree 100% If I can't convince anybody that something belongs in Wikipedia, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
Depends on your definition of "anybody" in this context. Hopefully you can recognize the (subtle) ambiguity here, but I can explain it if necessary (and if I can find the words to concisely do so, which might not be so easy).
—C.W.
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.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/10/08, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I agree 100% If I can't convince anybody that something belongs in Wikipedia, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
Depends on your definition of "anybody" in this context. Hopefully you can recognize the (subtle) ambiguity here, but I can explain it if necessary (and if I can find the words to concisely do so, which might not be so easy).
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/11/08, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
it looks literally like the word "if", followed by the negation of "I can convince anybody" (which by itself boasts either that "I am able to convince [at least one person]" or that "I am able to convince [any person]"), but I could be off my meds...
—C.W.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/11/08, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
it looks literally like the word "if", followed by the negation of "I can convince anybody" (which by itself boasts either that "I am able to convince [at least one person]" or that "I am able to convince [any person]"), but I could be off my meds...
We could just wait for Tony to reply with a clarification of his intended meaning instead of making guesses or assumptions that are going nowhere.
Chris Howie wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 3/11/08, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
it looks literally like the word "if", followed by the negation of "I can convince anybody" (which by itself boasts either that "I am able to convince [at least one person]" or that "I am able to convince [any person]"), but I could be off my meds...
We could just wait for Tony to reply with a clarification of his intended meaning instead of making guesses or assumptions that are going nowhere.
Certainly, but we also need to accept that the language speaks for itself, Alice in Wonderland notwithstanding.
Ec
On 3/11/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Certainly, but we also need to accept that the language speaks for itself, Alice in Wonderland notwithstanding.
Like I really need another condescending nickname. :p
—C.W.
Well, Tony & others will excuse me, but all i was trying to do was use his wording to try to expand on some possibilities. No harm or satire intended, just a way to get the discussion into what I thought might be some possible interesting directions.
eg. Notability solution: We should have an article if two independent established editors think we should? That would be enough to get rid of the real undoubted junk.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Chris Howie wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 3/11/08, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
it looks literally like the word "if", followed by the negation of "I can convince anybody" (which by itself boasts either that "I am able to convince [at least one person]" or that "I am able to convince [any person]"), but I could be off my meds...
We could just wait for Tony to reply with a clarification of his intended meaning instead of making guesses or assumptions that are going nowhere.
Certainly, but we also need to accept that the language speaks for itself, Alice in Wonderland notwithstanding.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
White Cat wrote:
What is the point of this thread again? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/
./scream
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:04 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/10/08, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I agree 100% If I can't convince anybody that something belongs in Wikipedia, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
Depends on your definition of "anybody" in this context. Hopefully you can recognize the (subtle) ambiguity here, but I can explain it if necessary (and if I can find the words to concisely do so, which might not be so easy).
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You are correct if, and only if, it is sourced. Our core policies already have clear consensus that -unsourced- information may be removed by anyone at any time, and that such information may not be put back until and unless a credible source is located.
Todd Allen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:04 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
You are correct if, and only if, it is sourced. Our core policies already have clear consensus that -unsourced- information may be removed by anyone at any time, and that such information may not be put back until and unless a credible source is located.
Sourcing is a means, not an end. Having the expression "by anyone at any time" in policy would be an invitation to chaos. The word "may" carries an unfortunate ambiguity. In that contest it should be viewed as a risk factor for anyone supplying information. It would be totally irresponsible to read it as a permissive "may" allowing anyone to blindly follow the letter of the rules.
Ec
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:04 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
You are correct if, and only if, it is sourced. Our core policies already have clear consensus that -unsourced- information may be removed by anyone at any time, and that such information may not be put back until and unless a credible source is located.
Sourcing is a means, not an end. Having the expression "by anyone at any time" in policy would be an invitation to chaos. The word "may" carries an unfortunate ambiguity. In that contest it should be viewed as a risk factor for anyone supplying information. It would be totally irresponsible to read it as a permissive "may" allowing anyone to blindly follow the letter of the rules.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sourcing is both a means and an end. Since we prohibit use of personal interpretations (see No Original Research), requesting a source cite is a means of asking "Show me that this isn't just something you researched yourself and came up with. Who says so?" It is also an end. Since the whole purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a starting point, not an endpoint, for research, providing sources shows a reader where to look for more in-depth information. In that sense, source cites are an essential, indispensable part of an article. They show fellow editors where you got your information, and readers where to look for more information. Sourcing is not a nicety. It is -required-, every time you make an edit (or at least if such is ever challenged, and hopefully someone would eventually challenge an unsourced claim), and damn well it should be. It's just too bad we don't have better enforcement for it.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 3/10/08, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I agree 100% If I can't convince anybody that something belongs in Wikipedia, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
Depends on your definition of "anybody" in this context. Hopefully you can recognize the (subtle) ambiguity here, but I can explain it if necessary (and if I can find the words to concisely do so, which might not be so easy).
When I read it I hesitated at that same word too. I would strictly define it as "at least one person". It's a bit like having a seconder for a motion at an official meeting of a group.
Ec
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
"The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"
Thoughts?
It would make more sense if it read "ultimate responsibility for substantiating inclusion". Ultimate responsibility is not an excuse of first resort, but that's the way so many deletion proposals appear to be framed. So many of these proposals are approached in a way that verification becomes a goal in its own right without regard to need. There may be no evident suggestion of libel or willfully erroneous material; all that is lacking is immediate sourcing.
Those who seek deletion should not ignore other steps that would lead to an improved article. If the information is at all plausible, seeking verification oneself is a preferable first step. Any editor can add it. A person can still put doubtful information on the talk page and begin discussion there. If that fails one can also initiate discussion with the contributor of the information.
One of the articles in that first list of Kurt's had to do with a Russian-SriLankan joint educational undertaking. Though I do concede that there was much to the article that suggested bias, there was at the same time comment from the inexperienced contributor expressing a desire to work with Wikipedia towards an agreed text. Nowhere was there any attempt to establish a dialogue with that person. This is the kind of inexcusable behaviour that is recently making Wikipedia a butt of jokes, not articles on obscure subjects which limited world views have tagged "not-notable".
Notability criteria have become a cesspool of bone-headed ignorance. Some seem to rejoice in claiming fictitiously high and subjective standards, standards which at the same time they fail to apply recursively. Verifiability was originally proposed to confront the vague notion of notability, No Original Research was designed to deal with concepts that could best be described as "off the deep end." Both have since become tools to impose personal POVs. If notability is the _only_ issue, and the proposed solution is to delete the whole article (rather than just individual statements within it) the responsibility for justifying deletion should shift to the person seeking that deletion. At the very least he should show that he has some idea of what he's talking about. How can a person outside of New Zealand who has never watched New Zealand television in all his life be in a position to say what is notable about a long-running New Zealand soap opera.
AfDs show a bias for the proximal. Subjects of relative equal value in a far-away country or town are less notable than an equivalent subject near home.
There is a bias against the small. It is ironic that people who decry the anti-sharing attitudes of the big recording companies appear to view the bands outside of that organization's grasp as not-notable A few easy to meet criteria should be enough to overthrow accusations of non-notability.
There is an anti-corporate bias. (And I say this as an old leftist who is more than ready to criticize corporate misdeeds.) A software producer in India was proposed as non-notable because its 40 branch operations were fewer than the branches of a New Hampshire restaurant chain. I'm sure that there are significant software producers in North America with fewer branch operations. It would help if we were dealing with comparable industries. Basic information about corporations is not about the good or bad deeds of the corporation. It is about general information: ownership patterns, location of headquarters and branches, its industry and products, its share price and dividend history. Such neutral information is often most easily available from the company's own publications, as well as such publications as the Wall Street Journal. It is not the spin and advertisement that a company produces, and a good NPOV editor should be able to sort out those two. Corporate information may be alien to the academic denizens, but it can be very interesting for many people. To begin with, every company listed on a stock exchange is sufficiently notable for inclusion.
Those are the first biases that I noted, and I'm sure that I will find others.
Ec
<snip>
To begin with, every company listed on a stock exchange is sufficiently notable for inclusion.
Actually, every company we can substantially, reliably, independently source material for an article about is notable enough for inclusion. That, and not something else. The sub-guidelines do nothing but either exclude too much (otherwise sourceable articles are excluded) or in many cases -include- too much (garbage, unsourceable articles are tolerated because technically "it's an album from a notable band" or "he plays third-string whatever for some pro team"). We need a less-squishy definition of what constitutes substantial independent reliable sourcing, we need to stick to it, and we need to get rid of the sub-guidelines. That would improve notability more than anything.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
"The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"
Thoughts?
Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Absolutely dead-on. If you didn't bother to find your sources, and someone else challenges your material, they can and should remove it if you fail to back it up. Sourcing is a -requirement- once a challenge is made (and presumably we are talking about a scenario in which some form of challenge is made, given that if no challenge is ever made, no justification is ever needed from anyone.) To preempt that, it is best to find sources BEFORE adding material (why would you be adding material without finding it in a reliable source anyway, and why not cite it if you have it?), but if one's material that -was- added without sourcing is challenged, one is responsible to either provide such sources or not obstruct removal until and unless sourcing can be found.
Todd Allen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
"The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"
Thoughts?
Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Absolutely dead-on. If you didn't bother to find your sources, and someone else challenges your material, they can and should remove it if you fail to back it up. Sourcing is a -requirement- once a challenge is made (and presumably we are talking about a scenario in which some form of challenge is made, given that if no challenge is ever made, no justification is ever needed from anyone.) To preempt that, it is best to find sources BEFORE adding material (why would you be adding material without finding it in a reliable source anyway, and why not cite it if you have it?), but if one's material that -was- added without sourcing is challenged, one is responsible to either provide such sources or not obstruct removal until and unless sourcing can be found.
Exactly on point.
./scream
On 11/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
"The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"
I agree. All that's required to remove unsourced information is someone disputing it (generally, we tag it and give someone a chance to source it, but I don't believe there is a requirement to do so). To put it back again, you need to find an adequate source. The burden is most definitely on the person wanting to include the disputed content.
On 11/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
"The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"
Thoughts?
It's the rule we've always applied for disputed content in articles, if memory serves.
On Tuesday 11 March 2008 11:53, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 11/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
"The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"
Thoughts?
It's the rule we've always applied for disputed content in articles, if memory serves.
Sure, and that's spot-on--but what you (and everyone else who makes this argument) ignore is that *that is not the case here*.
As you can see by the diff I posted earlier, this discussion is not in the context of discussion of a statement within an article whose accuracy is challenged, but rather as part of a discussion over the appropriateness of the subject for coverage in the encyclopedia altogether.
It's one thing to say, "You have to back up your statement in the article on lawnmower racing that says that Peyton Manning is the world champion lawnmower racer." It's another thing entirely to say, "The onus is upon you to prove that we should even have an article on lawnmower racing in the first place."
The latter is, essentially, the situation here.
It's one thing to say, "You have to back up your statement in the article on lawnmower racing that says that Peyton Manning is the world champion lawnmower racer." It's another thing entirely to say, "The onus is upon you to prove that we should even have an article on lawnmower racing in the first place."
I think it pretty much the same thing. Having an article on a subject is a statement that the subject is notable and verifiable, and the burden of proof is on the person making that statement.