I think there are different schools of thought. Some people prefer putting a "citation needed" template, others like this author are more conservative, remove t

I think there are different schools of thought. Some people prefer putting a "citation needed" template, others like this author are more conservative, remove things in the first instance and then possibly look for any good sources that would back the claim up (that approach is definitely the recommended one when it concerns living people). It's worth bearing in mind that spurious claims in Wikipedia tend to propagate very quickly. Here is a good example: https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/amelia-bedelia-wikipedia-hoax/ https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/amelia-bedelia-wikipedia-ho... Some more can be found here: https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/16/wikipedia_16_birthday_fails/ https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/16/wikipedia_16_birthday... So there is an argument to be made that rather than having spurious info propagating and contaminating the record, it's better to keep only what is well sourced.