Proposal.
Consensus on Inclusion -- Trust the Reader edit
{}rfc|policy|rfcid=95A549B{}
Some disputes when editing an article involve discussions as to whether material should be covered at all because after some discussion editors fail to agree as to whether it is relevant or notable. In these situations editors should attempt to classify the material as being in the following classes:-
- Essential content
- Non-essential but valuable
- Superfluous but verifiable and not harmful or POV
- Clearly unhelpful, irrelevant and distracting
Editors will disagree on the classification of material, but usually only by one level in the above scheme.
In the first instance editors should remove any material they consider class 3 & 4. But if that escalates into a dispute, then they should accept class 3 content, and trust the reader to determine its relevancy. Class 4 material always needs to go. But it is generally better to err on the side of leaving in some sub-optimal material than to remove useful content.
Note that this does not refer to the creation of new pages. Tuntable (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)