None of the above are really like the situation I was outlining, though I appreciate the examples, so that others can learn. The other (active) manager and I were unable to complete the merges any sooner, because I had to make an unresponsive manager request at the top of the merge stack, where sources were thin on the ground. The minute that got orphaned, so were the rest of the branch and once I had adopted the profiles, I started doing the merges but one has to sleep sometime and when I came back they had already been done, which I was initially grateful for, until I realised data was missing. I really felt that keeping the gedcom junk (user number, date changed etc) and losing the albeit brief bio on some of the profiles (as provided by the active manager), with birth date and links to the parents was a retrograde step. If the parents get disconnected, like they occasionally do by people who are not really sure what's what, then you have something that tells you what's been disconnected.
At the end of the day, we shouldn't be removing data just because it has not got a source, we should be searching for then providing a source if one is available, before considering any deletions of data. I work very hard at trying to find sources for the profiles I come across that have no real sources and I don't see why that should not be the standard to aim for. If you don't have the time, then leave it as it is. I have worked on this particular family of emigrants with one of the profile managers since last October and before that was working on the same family name in England trying to establish a connection between Warwickshire branches and Oxfordshire branches. Removing information hinders that process.