Inexplicably unpopular opinion: the priority for Wikipedia is not to delete whole articles, it's to delete unsubstantiated content within articles.
Personally I would be in favor of a bot that, after expiry of a time limit, deletes everything in an article - everything - where no citation has been provided. The resulting encyclopedia would be smaller but more accurate by definition, and almost certainly more useful.
I just cannot understand why it's so widely considered acceptable that articles contain unsourced factoids for years, even decades, on end.
I think thereâs an as big problem in that the citation provided often does not back the sentence claimâs, but since people rarely check the sources it gets included.
Does every bit of info have a published source?
What sort of requirements does Wikipedia have for published info, I wonder. There's a lot of wrong info published in books and online.
