Published information exists in time. A professional article can be accurate when written and later become incomplete because an external standard, regulation, professional guideline, or operating environment changed.
The correct response is not always deletion. First, identify the changed source and determine whether the change affects the article’s factual claims, recommendations, terminology, or scope. If it does, revise the article, update the modification date, and add a meaningful revision note when readers would benefit from knowing what changed.
Provenance helps because the earlier source relationship is preserved. The authority system can distinguish an article that was wrong when written from an article that was accurate under a prior standard but later required revision.
Where the old position has historical significance, the article may preserve it explicitly. A sentence can explain that earlier guidance reflected a prior standard and that the current section has been updated. This is more honest than silently rewriting history.
Maintenance should therefore be source-driven. The system should know which articles depend on which important standards so that a changed source can trigger a targeted review instead of requiring a blind audit of every page.