"Steve Bennett"
As the policy stands, I would argue for leaving it in the article, regardless of whether we can actually track down a source or not.
Well, I'm arguing that _asking the editor who inserted it_ is a kind of due diligence here. Like, go to User Talk, write 'Hi, interested to know how you researched Hari's schooling'. Before editing it out, after all of 72 hours. How much effort is that? Well, you have to look at the Page History.
My list of mistakes:
-Not assuming good faith (i.e. leaping to conclusions about a possible fabrication of a banal fact) -Not doing the collective things one does, to edit as a team on an article of common interest -Being too reactive, and lack of sense of proportion -No edit summaries -No use of article Talk -No use of User Talk -Probable ignorance of the use of the Page History, leading to a narrow view of one's responsibilities in editing -Misapprehension of Verifiability policy and its modalities -Ignorance of policy on biographies, leading to a wild goose chase.
Now, some of these are _newbie mistakes_, and the User has not been bitten (perhaps a bit scratched - see interchanges on Talk:Johann Hari, with cattiness from Felix^2). I would argue that just this isolation of 'thou may cut the unsourced' is a newbie-ism. It's the 'other things being equal' context that lacks.
I hope our newbies actually move up the learning curve from there. But it is much better to take WP:V as applying to one's own edits, to begin with. That could be said.
Charles