From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com
I think it's only deletionist when you delete such claims that could be true instead of giving people the chance to verify it. Only when you can falsify it, it can be removed.
Once a "citation needed" tag is in place, there's no need to do anything in a hurry. The reader is adequately warned, other editors are informed.
Depending on the situation, I will usually let them sit for a week to several months. I'll usually make at least a quick, half-assed effort to find a source myself before removing it. And when I do remove it, I don't just delete it, I put it on the talk page.
Not infrequently, someone will find a source and take it out of the talk page and put it back in the article. I love it when that happens.
The people I don't understand are the people who object to the tag being placed in the first place. I'd be all in favor of trying to find a less obtrusive tag, but, yes, I sometimes think the people who complain about "citation needed" tags are using it as a mask for opposition to the verifiability policy itself.