`:::: There should be some priomordial quality mandate.  Wikipedia should want quality verifiable references.  If [WP:VER] is intended to be weaponized then a bot could be made that deletes pages and sections based on whether the section contains an insufficiently prestigious reference.  Treating WP:VER as an intentional algorithm would allow an attacker to delete perhaps as high as 90% of wikipedia without even needing to look at the content.  No one could invoke any objection to the mass deletion if the literal interpretation of WP:VER is the most important rule on wikipedia.  Vandalism becomes impossible if criteria for removal applied to a science page can be robotically applied to a philosophy page. :::: The above attack would meet a common sense interpretation of vandalism.  The only possible protection from the mass deletion attack is if [WP:VAN] is considered to have higher priority for literal interpretation than WP:VER.  There should already be a common sense acceptance that Vandalism is more dangerous and objectively assessed than the quality of referenced material, and as shown above, rejecting the statement binds wikipedia to a suicide pact.  Its my view that the recent deletions are indistinguishable from robotic vandalism and they deleted high quality and verifiable references based only on the content hosting platform. :::: If Vandalism and Verifiability are to be equally considered in actions, then restoring the content and tagging it as needing better sources should be done.  Also if there is to be a defense from robotic deletion of the majority of wikipedia, then ``deletors`` that have shown no previous contribution to the page should be treated more suspiciously than those who have helped build it.  `