Having read this question I have to raise doubts what essential difference there is between posting elementary research on skeptics.SE or publishing it on some random blog and next referencing it here.
In the end, expertise is required to judge research (no matter where it's from) for its quality; that's what being a skeptic is all about.
Claiming that a skeptic is just about being an expert in referencing would disqualify a lot of the answers on this site, because a lot of answers are simply referencing logically solid but technically unauthoritative sources (if this is disputed I can compile a list).
On top of that a lot of answers are all about the interpretation of external data (e.g. this answer) which is also nothing more or less than original research, no matter how many sources for individual facts you cite.
What I am trying to make clear is that on one hand the original research policy from a skeptics point of view is quite poor and from a SE point of view is quite vague. And when policies are vague and don't have clear boundaries at the very least mods shouldn't delete answers left and right, but rather the community should be allowed to vote their agreement or disagreement.
Additionally there is a very simple alternative that already now applied to some extend: Instead of counting references, judging whether answers are checkable. After all, verifiable, checkable answers is the thing that should be the life and blood of a skeptic. And if you don't believe an answer is verifiable: downvote and comment why you think so, that way others will downvote as well! Which after all a lot of users agree with.
Which for that matter is another problem this SE has, the extend to which the mods use their powers is totally disproportionate compared to other SE giving this site far less of a community feeling (which at least for me is always one of the reasons I try to stay away from posting on this site).
Oh well, just some thoughts for you guys to consider, do with them whatever you wish.