Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Becnel


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

The result was   delete.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Philip Becnel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person. Becnel is a Virginia private investigator who has served as past-president of his state's trade association (marginal) and who has been used as a source in some articles. The articles do not appear to be about him, but rather simply rely on him as an informed source. Given the hype that was included in the article originally (see the page history, and the talk page discussion), one can presume that the author may be trying to promote this subject. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep - The original version of Philip Becnel's page was accurate, but the references that could be cited using available online sources left the page tagged with multiple "not in citation given" notations. Those tags marked "not in citation given" were well-deserved because the reference sources did not say verbatim what the preceding sentence claimed to be true. After recognizing this, and in an attempt to remedy the errors, the Wikipedia page was modified to match the citations provided. Now all the information on the page is verifiable using the reference that follows each sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pubwriter112 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The original version of the page was impressive, and if it had been borne out by the sources, would easily have met the criteria for inclusion. The rewritten page, pared down to the facts that are actually supported by the sources, is somewhat less impressive and rather run-of-the-mill.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

On the issue of whether Mr. Becnel is a “pioneer” or not in using behavioral analysis in vetting plaintiff for law firms, while the Washington Post article cited does not use that exact phrase it is clearly implied in the story where Mr. Becnel approached the attorney after he lost a sexual harassment suit. The absence of any publication anywhere that mentions this topic prior to this article should be sufficient to show that Mr. Becnel is a pioneer in this field. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/value-added-the-business-case-of-the-arlington-private-eye/2012/03/02/gIQA38DSrR_story.html
 * Claiming that Becnel is a pioneer in this field based on your inability to find references to anyone preceding him in the field is the most egregious example of synthesis I've seen at Wikipedia in qute some time. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * delete Need sources about Becnel that say something other than president of trade association (i.e. trivial mention). Fails WP:NPERSON.  Sailsbystars (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

KEEP – Note that this Fed Times article cites Becnel as an “expert in background checks”: http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20130707/ACQUISITION03/307070009/CBP-secret-deal-bury-investigator-s-past-misconduct-questioned and this one refers to him as a “widely sought expert on criminal matters”: http://www.ohio.com/news/local/experts-debate-terror-survival-and-stockholm-syndrome-in-cleveland-kidnappings-1.398845 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.54.75 (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither article is about Becnel; both use him as a source for background material on the story at hand, but that is not the same as coverage of him as a subject. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:59, 21 January 2014 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.