From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
<macgyvermagic(a)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.