`  :::::This one has been done to death as well.  And this time, I can find the discussion.  It is here.  This was an administrators' noticeboard complaint raised because a single editor was being regarded by many as being disruptive because he routinely deleted anything from any article that he routinely patrolled that was uncited.  This applied to both contentious meterial as well as the blatantly obvious.  And he is still very active in this pursuit.  The outcome was that he was perfectly within his rights to do so.  Any claim in any article that is simply deleted as unreferenced or tagged as {{citation needed}} has, by definition, been challenged and so the ``... unlikely to be challenged ...`` caveat no longer applies.  If the meterial was deleted, then anyone restoring it is obliged to provide the reference or they can be held to be edit warring.    :::::Until the appearance of this editor, I had long held the view that it was common courtesy to tag a contentious point before deleting it (if no acceptable reference was forthcoming within a reasonable time).  I personally still hold that view, but the outcome was that any editor is free to delete any material from any article that is not supported by a reference without giving any notice whatsoever.     :::::Please also note: that the fact that other articles do not conform to WP:LEDE is not a valid reason as to why this one should not conform either (WP:OSE).  If I had the time, I would thank KDS4444 for his helpful list of other articles; move the list of brand names to the main body (WP:LEDE) assuming they were properly referenced and remove the bolding (MOS:BOLD).   `