Reviewing guidance on meta and our post notice on main, it seems we put forward as a matter of substantive policy that answers must be backed up and supported, either objectively with proper citation to other relevant sources, or subjectively through a helpful description of your experience implementing your answer at the gaming table. Indeed, this is the guidance put forward on our canonical question on the issue, What are the citation expectations of answers on RPG Stack Exchange? :
People ask about mechanics because they're trying to better understand the game and how it works. Anyone can make a ruling, but that includes the person who asked the question, so we're not looking for this content. You should answer with how the game affirmatively handles the situation based on its text and cite the game's text to back up your statements.
Any of us can say “here's what I'd do” based on no actual experience, or come up with something on the spot as an off-the-cuff idea, but our site is not looking for this content. We want to collect tried-and-tested solutions with well-understood outcomes. We don't want your opinion; we want your expertise. If you do not have experiences you can bring to the table in that particular case, do not answer the question. Answers not doing so may be downvoted and/or deleted.
Now, this is guidance from meta, and the line between meta guidance and policy is often unclear (see here and here). That said, it seems to me that guidance is heading toward being policy when steps are taken to enforce it on main, such as our post notice, which reads:
Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct. Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted.
Meta guidance and the post notice seem to be pretty clear about this: unsupported answers are subject to deletion. Obviously, we should leave comments and work to help OP improve their answer, but ultimately, it is OP's responsibility to provide the meaningful justification for their answer; and if the answer is deleted, they can always come back to it and edit it, then flag for undeletion.
That said, are an answer and its author excused from this requirement if the answer is well received by the community?
Consider this question: What is the precedent for what happens to a warlock's character levels if their patron dies?
Obviously, the easy way out is "It's up to the DM". What I'm actually looking for is if there has ever been a precedent set for what happens when a character basically loses access to a class. For instance, 5e Oathbreaker Paladin shows what happens to a paladin that breaks their oath.
I'm interested in finding any precedent set throughout the history of D&D that will help a DM decide how to handle this.
The author sets a very clear expectation of what constitutes an answer to this question. This is an objective question; OP is looking for relevant source material that addresses the situation in question.
On this question, the most well received answer (by a significant margin, answer is at +83/-2, accepted and next highest answer is at +46/-4) fails to cite any of its claims. The answer reads, in full:
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being.
Why would they think that killing the patron ends the pact? Sadly for your warlock, the obligation comes from the pact, not the patron. No doubt the dead patron has heirs and assignees who will explain this.
That’s assuming that the pact hasn’t already been restructured into several CPOs (Collateralized Pact Obligations) and on-sold on the infernal markets which have recovered well since the Multiverse Financial Crisis a few years back.
Just an alternate thought.
The answer makes many claims that are directly relevant to OP's situation, but not a single one of them is backed up by any relevant lore source. Normally, "here's a neat idea" answers like this are quickly downvoted and swept under the rug through normal community moderation. But this didn't happen here. Based on the existing guidance found here on meta, it seemed that a comment would be appropriate, encouraging the author to provide citations. The comment was responded to by OP including a meaningless link to the Warlock class description. I flagged for mod attention, suggesting that a post notice be added. No post notice was added, and further flags were declined with this message:
This is not a piece of curation override the mod team will be doing. If you disagree with the answer, please use your normal tools.
My normal tools here would be flagging LQP, which cannot be done, flagging NAA, which was declined by a moderator, linking in chat suggesting downvotes so that the answer could eventually be delete voted, which I'm sure 82 downvotes is out of the question, and flagging for mod attention to handle this strange exception to typical voting patterns and site curation, which was declined by a moderator, asking me to use my normal tools.
The only remaining tool is a meta discussion about if we really mean that unsupported answers are subject to deletion, or if totally unsupported answers get a free pass if they reach a critical mass where normal site curation tools cannot be applied.