Should answers without references be immediately deleted?

Question

We have established that this site “strongly encourages” references in answers. Although it does not appear to reflect full consensus, I even upvoted the answer that states that we should require references. However, as a moderator,* I have to make a decision: does “strongly encouraging references” mean that I should immediately delete all answers that do not include references?

_{*Soon and very soon, this will also be a decision relevant to 4k+ users.}

Answer 1

_{N.B.! Although the question was asked on behalf of the moderation team, this answer represents only my personal opinion and should not be construed to reflect the view of the moderation team I work with, the community team who appointed me, or anyone else.}

---

I do not want to do this. I can and will down-vote, comment, and add post-notices:

Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.

And I will participate is such disputation and deletion (after disputation). However, I think the notion that moderators should reflexively delete anything without a reference neglects the nuance of the situation. Posts can not be (sanely) divided into: has a reference | doesn’t have a reference.

Has a reference (but still ‘aint no good)

• Includes a reference (or twenty) that is tangentially related but doesn’t actually support the claims in the answer.
• Includes reference(s) that back up the obvious claims in the answer but don’t speak to the more substantial aspects that actually need a source.
• Includes reference(s) that, taken out of context, seem to back up an important claim, but, when the data are viewed with a more critical eye, they do not. (See also, How to Lie with Statistics.)
• Includes reference(s) to the University of X website that contains someone else’s opinion with no author cited, let alone peer review or references to primary literature. You may as well have made it up yourself.

Doesn’t have a reference (but still has value)

This is harder. Most of these indeed deserve DV and post notices given the stance this site has already taken. However:

• Many are actually better than the ones in the group above. In academic literature, there are certain assumptions made about background knowledge. Some questions here could be answered by invoking basic concepts that could be found in any introductory textbook. An expert who drops by and sees such a question is likely to simply answer it. We’re different! We need references! I know. →

• Having good, unreferenced information sitting around, getting down voted, graying out, is good for the community.

  • Reminder: include references when you answer.
  • Opportunity: participate in cleaning up this site by editing to include references and improve answers.

• Having bad, unreferenced information sitting around, getting down voted, graying out, is good for the community:

  • Reminder: include references when you answer.
  • Opportunity: participate in cleaning up this site by voting to delete crap.*

I’m not arguing for lower standards; I’m arguing for higher ones. I want to see critical comments, DVs, and eventual VTDs in all four categories in the first group in addition to the second group. We need to foster a discerning community that appreciates subtlety and approaches science with rigor.

The presence of references doesn't correlate consistently with quality or even acceptability. Simply hitting the delete button because there’s no link may be an easy out that confers the appearance of scrupulousness, but it’s not a wise approach.

---

_{*Pending a substantial body of 4k users, flagging for mod deletion (after a reasonable period of time has elapsed with consistent DVing and no attempts at a rescue by the OP or good Samaritans with Pubmedding skills) is reasonable. I would be happy to work with the community to quantify «reasonable period of time» — 30 days?}