Talk:Lothar Franz von Schönborn

WP:RS
Wikis are not generally considered reliable sources per WP:RS. Per WP:BURDEN, once material lacking reliable sources has been challenged, it cannot be restored without appropriate sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the article is supported by inline citations (in an ideal world it should be), but I have difficulties seeing how your edit has improved the article (you have deleted lots of correct information; some years ago, this was still called "vandalism"). I have restored the content for the moment until any of it is challenged explicitly. —Kusma (t·c) 21:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am explicitly challenging all content taken from that unreliable source - if it's not reliable as a source of information for citation purposes, it certainly should not be considered reliable as a source of content. You are welcome to add material from more reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * challenging does not mean that every sentence has to be supported by inline citations! This would be misleading.--Symposiarch (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source" (WP:V). That means that yes, every sentence not supported by inline citations can be removed, and material so removed cannot be restored unless reliably sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will disengage now, as reverting this page back and forth is a stupid waste of time, which could be used to write articles instead. I will just say that WP:V was more useful a couple of years ago, when actual challenging of the material was necessary (I don't have time right now to find out what happened there or why). Nevertheless, the long unsourced version is significantly better than your (also completely unsourced) stub. I suggest you remove all unsourced material and then use WP:AFD or WP:CSD to delete the rest, and hope you will feel better about having "improved" Wikipedia. —Kusma (t·c) 05:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the stub provides should provide sufficient information for interested editors to build on, as you may do if you wish; the longer version, while it may "look" better, is taken from an unreliable source and so is better abandoned. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)