Wikipedia: Am I wrong on this one?

[FireNexus]

I find myself editing the Bawls page on wikipedia, removing a piece of unverifiable information, and suddenly "there seems to be no evidence that this is true" is now original research, and I'm unable to remove the offending snippet. The guy can't seem to get into his head that lack of evidence beyond a company marketing page for a claim is grounds for removal, instead he's latching on to my offhand "best I can tell" statement on the Bawls discussion page.

Here's the discussion thus far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... Bawls_page

Am I wrong on this one?

[Bounty]

The guy can't seem to get into his head that lack of evidence beyond a company marketing page for a claim is grounds for removal, instead he's latching on to my offhand "best I can tell" statement on the Bawls discussion page.

He's being an ass, but I guess his big hang-up is that you edited a page based on "as best as you can tell" without providing a source - neglecting the whole "prove a negative" problem.

If I were you, I'd find some source - any source - that brings the claim into doubt and post it on the talk page. Once you can point to an outside verification for your edit, it should go through.

Other then tha, I'd try to argue with him that the original claim is uncited (at least not cited by an impartial source) and should be either be removed or clarified ("promotional materials state...").