":::: 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.

"