Cheney Shill schreef:
Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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