Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dematt/BCASingh

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Ə XPLICIT 02:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Dematt/BCASingh

 * – (View MfD)

Polemical userpage (U5) of a no-longer-active COI user supporting the losing side in British Chiropractic Association v Singh, a case which not only did the chiropractors lose, it was also the catalyst for the Defamation Act 2013, which made such lawsuits effectively impossible in future. So not only did they lose, they also preemptively lost all future possible versions of the case. Guy (help!) 13:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC) To the question, "what's the harm". So the userbox, which is substantially larger than normal, states, in bold and very large letters, a number of premises that are incorrect, have been judged to be incorrect in court, and which denigrate a living person. Guy (help!) 10:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * update
 * The (huge) userbox states as fact that Singh portrayed the BCA as consciously dishonest. That argument was made in court and rejected, in fact their case rested on this idiosyncratic interpretation of Singh's article, whic was originally supported by Eady (J), and this was later assessed to have been an error - i.e. this interpretation is not valid. To assert as fact that it is so, is a BLP violation. It's akin to calling someone a swindler after the court has established that no swindle took place and the prosecution has been witrhdrawn.
 * It states as fact that Singh was "publicly misrepresentating his opinion as fact". That accuses Singh of misrepresentation, an argument also rejected in court and therefore a BLP violation when stated as fact, and also implies that Singh's conclusion was counterfactual, which it was not (again: they lost).


 * Keep. Within reasonable leeway.  Suggest tagging the userpage with the date it was placed, and the date if the user's last edit.  More bold editing could also fixed perceived problems with the view being outdated.  CSD#U5 does not apply because the user was a contributor.  Not polemical according to the WP:UP standards.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. What's the harm? 🐔 Chicdat Chicken Database 10:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per JzG. That's what the harm is. 🐔 Chicdat Chicken Database 10:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.