Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Evidence of burden


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Userfy and make clear that this is merely an opinion and has no consensus.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of burden
This states the opposite of the truth. The onus is, and must be, on those who seek to include disputed content, to justify said inclusion, a principle endorsed in some arbitration cases and essentially covered by WP:BRD. If the material is genuinely and unambiguously relevant then consensus will be evident. It is also the polar opposite of WP:BRD - essentially it enshrines the principle that anyone can add anything and then demand that others prove it is not relevant, a POV-pusher's charter - bold, revert, revert again and demand that the other party prove to your satisfaction that the moon is not, in fact, made of green cheese. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC) **Nope (as to the tag), User essay is a redirect to Essay where the language you cite comes from and it's not intended for personal essays. User essay is used for essays about users (see ) and would be entirely inappropriate here.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (What the heck was I reading?! The proposed tag should be used.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Move to user subpage as detailed in User essay, its a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Its the opinion of one user, so move it to some user`s subpage. -- Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  00:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy - A one editor essay with no apparent support from anywhere else in the community and adverse to core principles should not remain in the project space. Normally, personal essays aren't allowed; however, this essay does deal directly with Wikipedia and Wikiphilosophy and doesn't appear to violate either WP:NOT (the relevant policy), or WP:UP (the relevant guideline).  It is disconcerting to see an essay that advocates a position that opposes a core policy (WP:V, esp. WP:PROVEIT), and which therefore seems to promote an anarchy, but censorship would be worse, so move it to userspace and put a userpage tag on it for clarity. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User essay or simply Essay will both work and one of those should be used as suggested by Pie, in conj with userpage so there is no confusion in the event someone stumbles across it. I wish we had another essay tag to choose from as you may head it or not doesn't really apply here.  Additionally,  states: Essays in Wikipedia namespace that are mostly written by a single person, and not frequently referenced, are generally moved to the userspace of their author.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see a particular use for this essay, even in userspace. The very premise, as JzG suggests, allows for POV pushing and runs counter to core issues as Doug points out. I see nothing good coming out of keeping something like this around.  Syn  ergy 03:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or userfy. I'm not sure if I agree with every word the essay says, but it does make some very good points. It does need tweaking to avoid the POV pushing empowerment, but that's not really a great concern since this page has no authority. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to User:Kendrick7/Evidence of burden. Should we have tags & categories for disputed and rejected essays?  At worst, blank if it is misleading nonsense, mischevious, or something like that.  In this case, it seems to be merely a good faith essay of hyperinclusionism.  In any case, no good comes in the long run in deleting such things.  It starts to look like censorship of your opposition.  Better to archive, by blanking, tagging, or altering the introduction to clarify that what follows in one persons misguided opinion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy I am seriously tempted to argue for the deletion of this essay, as it misrepresents established practice and is almost entirely copied from WP:ONUS, but Doug is right that censorship would be worse. Put a tag on it to indicate that it is the opinion of one user. Hut 8.5 12:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy. This doesn't have the suuport of the Wikipedia community, and isn't going to have the support of the Wikipedia community; it shouldn't be in project space. It's fine in user space, however, provided that it clearly identifies as one user's opinion. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, essays in the project space are generally allowed to exist without support from the community. If it had support then it probably wouldn't be tagged as an essay ;) (which isn't to say I oppose userifcation, since, as Doug points out, this essay is primarily authored by just one user, for the time being). -- Ned Scott 06:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize that there are essays in project space that don't necessarily have broad support (plus historical ones that have no current support). Most of the are not problematic, if they're labelled correctly. Just to be clear, I don't think this one is useful to have in project space, even if labelled correctly; it's too far from what is actually accceptable practice, and presence in project space could dilute a proper understanding of that. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Userfy. Also, I get the feeling that what this essay says isn't exactly what the user in question means to say...I don't think it's meant to justify POV-pushing as it is to oppose removing established content from an article without good reason.  Or maybe I'm just tired.  It's hard to read it.  Still, belongs in userspace regardless.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Weak Userfy - per the many comments above. This would not appear to be anywhere near a "humourous" essay. Suggesting deletion because this has a possibility to mislead others. - jc37 01:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It does have the potential to mislead, but censorship is alwasy bad in the long run. Instead of Delete, would you support blank and protect?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What good would that do? It's the worst of all worlds...it isn't readily available, it can't be modified, and it's -still- there.  Wouldn't "hiding it and making sure nobody can ever bring it back or change it" also be censorship?  --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiding it behind a door that anybody can open (ie blanking)is not censorship because it is still there for anyone to read. It might be a good idea as a statement of disapproval.  I don't support deletion, because that seems to deny that people can have this opinion, but I am worried that by merely userfying, we are failing to say that this opinion is not OK, and that in future someone might read it and this and conclude the converse.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of publicly saying, "Your opinion sucks" by blanking it, why not just move it into userspace? That's the place for personal essays anyways. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is my !vote. I was seeking clarification of the positions of those who feel the essay is so bad/misleading/dangerous that it should be deleted.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In this specific case, I don't in any way see the deletion of this specific page as "censorship". To call it censorship would presume that "publishing" original thought is acceptable on Wikipedia. There are several problems with such a presumption. Most of which should be fairly obvious, I would presume? - jc37 10:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The publishing of original thought with regard to wikipedia policy is OK, indeed, that is what essays are for. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also what userspace is for. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tag as Rejected. Isn't that how we avoid censorship and say as a community this is a really bad idea? I'd even go so far as moving this discussion to the talk page and editing the essay to say why it is a really bad idea.  There's a bloody good guide to making essays somewhere which states it has to present both sides of a given view. Hmm, Wikipedia essays seems to indicate userfication, but I really would be inclined to do otherwise.  Hiding T 11:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The rejected template is more for rejected policies, I think. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The rejected tag is for anything we reject. We're not a bureaucracy. If the boot fits, we wear it. Hiding T 13:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Essays are not proposals. Not what we mean by proposals anyway, we mean proposals for policy or guidelines.  {tl|rejected}} is inappropriate for this.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, but with notification: The user must be notified to move this into a word document before deletion. DarkFireYoshi (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.