It appears the bulk of the confusion here is because the deleting moderator actually deleted the answer as un/undersourced—under the (reasonable) justification that metadata alone doesn't count as "enough" of a source, but for some unclear reason insists on labeling it with the inapplicable "original research" regardless of how much confusion that causes.
Isn't that on-topic for skeptics.se?
(Maybe sadly) no. To quote the FAQ:
Skeptics - Stack Exchange is for challenging unreferenced notable claims, pseudoscience and biased results.
Skeptics is about applying skepticism — it is for researching the evidence behind claims you encounter. It is not for speculation, philosophical discussions or investigating ...
Welcome to Skeptics!
I suggest you have a read of the Welcome to New Users FAQ.
Your question has been substantially rewritten to make it possible to re-open it.
In particular, the irrelevant references that were distracting from the claim have been removed and the relevant references have had their key claims cited.
I think it remains a poor question. The ...
Addressing the claim that no-one would actually believe what Trump says in this example, it's not clear to non-US people that it isn't true. Some places are mostly cashless now (parts of Europe, parts of China) and thus all transactions do require some kind of ID, even if it's just the details on the contactless card or WePay account.
Also, the Trump ...
1) No. I think that should be enough to re-open it.
We want to avoid falling over ourselves trying to answer questions based on evidence that is still filing in. We aren't journalists chasing down the breaking news. Sometimes our best response is to sit back and let the evidence arrive before we try to interpret it.
2) Generally, I would suggest a flag is ...
Your question currently contains a large number of question following the form: "Does eating X and then drinking Y cause Z?" where X, Y & Z are:
watermelon, water, trees to grow in your stomach
fish only - no other meal, water, ???
fish, water or milk, weakening of digestion system
fish, water or milk, fever
fish, water or milk, cold
fish, water or milk,...
I don't think we can fix this question:
The claim seems to be a "plausible joke", not a solid claim
The claim is not extremely notable, even though it is likely notable
The claim is extremely vague, as I commented under the question, making the question non meaningfully answerable
Changing the claim would make the claim non-notable
Are there better notable ...
I don't think we do. Your question does not really have a clear claim you are skeptical about, it's basically asking for evidence on a whole topic.
While it is a valid and interesting question, it would not work as-is on this site, but it would probably work on a specific science site. We routinely close and migrate questions to specific sites when they are ...
Please have a read of the discussion here: Are magic tricks in scope?
Please also have a read of the answer of the duplicated question that directly addresses your question, particularly the quote from Derren Brown:
I am often dishonest in my techniques, but always honest about my dishonesty. As I say in each show, 'I mix magic, suggestion, psychology, ...
This case doesn't neatly fit any of our established categories for removing answers, but it does have the same underlying issues. I personally would have viewed this more as an uncited answer. The metadata isn't a proper reference to support the claim according to our standards. The important part is not whether a certain piece of metadata is attached to ...
You are right, the other question was also non-notable (even searching for the image leads to our site first...)
In the case of "going loco", the point is: who cares if he said those exact words? Have they any significance that it's worthwhile exploring? If he said "going nuts" or "going crazy" what would change?
There's perhaps a notable claim in there, ...
Trump's politics may be rather strange but they have carried him into arguably one of the most powerful positions in the world. POTUS used to be be regarded as the leader of the free world, and although somewhat diminished now is still a powerful and prestigious role.
More over, the rest of the Republican party and the wider far right movement in the US and ...
I'm against giving a free pass even to famous politicians.
Not everything anyone famous says is notable--they need to convince a bunch of people. In this day and age of shooting claims on Twitter like there's no tomorrow, there is no guarantee that people take this stuff seriously.
I see a number of issues related to this question that need to be addressed:
Stossel's web-site is poorly written. It isn't clear at all what he is claiming. The page jumps all over the place, and it never seems to stick to a point. I am not familiar with his normal style, but this makes it tricky. I don't agree with you when you say "the implication is ...