Cheney Shill schreef:
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And the very next sentence after that is "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the scope of the policy's impact rather significantly.
How does that reduce the scope of the policy?
Because it says there is only a problem if the material is doubtful. An unsourced statement that is not challenged and not likely to be challenged -- and that is not libelous if untrue, I should add -- is not to be removed, according to WP:V.
The question is how long should articles without reliable sources be allowed to remain. Should they be allowed to linger indefinitely?
Yes. Unless they have problems that can only be solved by deletion.
Eugene