This has come up before, I believe, but I've just seen another example. It comes back to the old argument about what constitutes a source. I thought we had settled on the definition that a source is just where your information comes from.
The example I came across had familysearch.org's "Ancestral File" as its only source. That's not a very strong source, since it's user-submitted and often contains many submissions that are riddled with contradictions. It also usually offers no sources for these submissions.
There are MANY sources which are highly dubious like this, but I think it's inappropriate to add the unsourced template to such a profile. This would involve us all making judgement calls about which sources are actually SOURCES, and which are not.
Better would be to add a better source if you can find one. Anyone else agree that we shouldn't be adding the unsourced template to profiles because we don't approve of the source provided?