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.
Matt Jacobs wrote:
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.
The key word here is "ultimately". The challenge needs somewhat more of a rationale than a simple absence of references by someone who has never bothered to look for any or undertaken some kind of dialogue that would result. In some cases nothing more than a Google search would have discovered easy references.
Someone unfamiliar with a subject area at all has no way of knowing what is or is not controversial. In those cases seeking deletion of whole articles without attempting alternative solutions is just being dickish.
Your specific example suggests that you were at least familiar with the subject matter. This is sadly not the case in a large number of deletion proposals.
Ec