Ilmari is quite right. Nuking policy is not going to help if you have nothing to replace it with. If you think it's badly worded, you should attempt to reword it rather than nuking. It's rather like RS being used to delete material an editor dislikes.
"Our policies should not be goals - they should be policies. If we cannot meaningfully implement the policy across all of our pages then it's a bad policy. This isn't actually a problem for most of our policies. [[WP:NPOV]] is actually basically understandable by any reasonably intelligent person, can be kept in mind, doesn't really require extra work. As a result, most of our pages do make a passing effort on NPOV. That is not true for sourcing."
I disagree with this. Reliable Sources is also basically understandable to a reasonably intelligent person (if they bother to read it) and really doesn't require all that much extra work. Typing in the URL or title for the book you used to create something should only take about 1 or 2 minutes for a short entry. If we enforce the policy better, we can actually catch up. How are we supposed to know if something is accurate when there's nothing to check against? I often tell people who question the accuracy of Wikipedia to check the sources of an article like you should do with any source of info; it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia if it turns out there's nothing there to check. Should we really kill off a core policy to accomodate the lazy editors among us?
No, Jimbo himself said we should focus more on quality than quantity at Wikimania. The only way we are going to know something is of high quality is when we can check it.
Mgm