Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Pieczenik


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Steve Pieczenik

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Credulous bio-page for Alex Jones conspiracy-theory guest; all listed references are to conspiracy websites; all supporters on Talk page are new users who've joined for the sole purpose of defending the article.--Mike18xx (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Although most of me wants to scream delete, it also seems like it would be viable to request semi-protection to stop all the damn SPA's from editing it and then prune it down to what facts are verifiable. As a co-author of multiple best-selling books he probably has a viable claim to notability, the article is just trash in it's current state. I'll put in a semiprotection request and then tomorrow I'll edit out all the crap assuming it's gone through. Kevin (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it occurs to me that a protection request would likely be denied since it hasn't actually been vandalized yet. I'll whirlwind through it and strip it down to the verifiable basics, and will ask for semiprotection tomorrow if the current tripe is put back in. Kevin (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not a "co-author", as far as I can tell. (As I wrote on the relevant Talk page, Clancy appears to have consulted Pieczenik, then given him 2nd-listing credit for a franchise -- but it appears neither men actually wrote the books themselves, but instead farmed out the writing chores to other men (who, in times past, would have been uncredited "ghost-writers"). Aside from that, Googling Pieczenik reveals almost nothing -- virtually all references to him are 9/11 tin sites promoting the Wikipedia article and the Alex Jones interview. Yet the claim is made that he's this important government insider with a long list of credentials spanning Vietnam to the Reagan Administration!--Mike18xx (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, it looks like you may be right about him not actually having written anything in the Clancy books. It does look like he wrote at least a couple books though, and some of his biographical details may be right. I looked around google for sources, and added anything approximating reliable that I found, but cut out like 95% of his article.  Once you start looking at only that which can be reliably sourced, his article looks awful sparse awful fast. I'm gonna have to go with delete.  Kevin (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I found a funny! His Wikipedia article is linked from the www.infowars.com/top-us-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-a-false-flag/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Infowars] article that was cited in the Wikipedia article in an attempt to confirm his bonafides and say that he cannot be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. That makes the original version of the article here look pretty clearly like it was inserted for promotional purposes to me now. Kevin (talk)
 * I also suspect his (very brief) IMDB bio-page is similarly fabricated because it contained text passages identical to the now-redacted material here.--Mike18xx (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that no information on his page can be independently verified, the claims to hold a PhD from Harvard can only be verified by viewing his own site and reading what he wrote about himself. I actually checked and looking to see if he's written a dissertation and found nothing, and found no verifiable proof that he ever had any involvement with the US Government. I vote delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.86.145 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — 74.90.86.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * A quick google news archive search shows articles dating as far back as 1995. Dr. Pieczenik is authentic, to attempt disputing this by simply pointing this ties with Alex Jones is simply irresponsible. Google is your friend. LINK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.122.147 (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — 98.253.122.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * * KEEP He is credited as "co-creator" in over 25 best-selling books, including Tom Clancy's Op-Center and Tom Clancy's Net Force. Nuf said...--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Co-creator" is advertising slight-of-hand for "ran a production company which promised Clancy a TV show, got him to sign a deal, then farmed out all the writing work to a bunch of stringer." Neither Clancy nor Pieczenik wrote a single word in any of the Op-center franchise novels.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * * Weak keep - but watch carefully for poppycock creeping in to the article. After my earlier massive cuts through the article, I did a little bit of source research on my own, and found some stuff.  I also tracked down one of the forums that generated the initial flood of WP:SPA's and told them that I would be happy to add any reliable sources that they found.  It's going to be a magnet for SPA's and people adding unsourced stuff - from all the conspiracy theory crud it got 15,000 views yesterday - but careful watching should filter out problems related to that, and I think he has pretty decent claim to notability independent of conspiracy theory crud. Kevin (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP: Just removing it because he's got some visibility due to jone's article is unacceptable. Info just be filtered out depending on what is verifiable, but the page should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)  — Echofloripa (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: Co-author/Author of numerous New York Times best selling books. LINK This fact alone makes him notable. --  ĴoeĴohnson | 2  18:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not the author or co-author of any of the Tom Clancy-branded books in that link. Kevin (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After double checking, I believe you're probably right in this instance. I might have mixed up co-creator with co-author. Vote still stands as keep. --  ĴoeĴohnson | 2  19:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I vote  keep . Just this discussion alone is a useful source of data in evaluating verity. This guy is getting links from Mainstream media discussion boards - how I came to listen to his bin Laden theories. -- '''David Camp, May 5, 2011 (what is this html?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcamp (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)  — Dmcamp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The fact that someone is massively spammed on the internet after appearing on a conspiracy talk-show does not confer notability. This is particularly the case if the person's credentials have been, shall we say, "embellished"...although I certainly wouldn't have any objection to an article remaining if it is discovered that he's a fraud, and the article indicates so! --Mike18xx (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrators may wish to keep an eye on the Op-Center article ...I've edited the authors column to match those credited in the novels themselves (as pic'd on Amazon). Some previous editor had credited Pieczenik with many of them, when, as far as I can tell, Jeff Rovin wrote all of them (including "ghosting" #2,3 and 4 in the series, in which author is not indicated on the book -- I left the author field blanks for those novels). I have made similar edits to the Tom Clancy's Net Force entries. (If someone out there is an Amazon editor, the erroneous "writer" credits on that site should be corrected as well -- it's bad enough when a "ghost-writer" doesn't get credit when his name doesn't appear; it's worse when he's not credited even though his name is right there on the front cover.)--Mike18xx (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrators may desire to note that several verifiable sources have been added with citations documenting his career with the United States State Department under President Jimmy Carter. In addition he has several published works with the American Intelligence Journal - this was added as well with citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsviking (talk • contribs) 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — Hsviking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * All references linking Amazon listings in support of authorship claims should be deleted unless there is clear evidence (such as a picture of the book indicating such) that he is an actual author. Too many Amazon text-descriptions are erroneous. Same deal with IMDB references.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to this, so I was unaware that 1) someone being a guest of Alex Jones is automatically considered reason to dismiss him/her as authentic, and 2) that those who are deciding whether he/she is authentic, whether me or someone else, suddenly have more authority than those who originate the piece. -- Jubal tunes
 * It is not advisable, as a newly-created account, to begin your first post (on a subject dear to your heart) with a misrepresentation of procedure questioning the veracity of the article. Near the top of this page, Kevin referred to "SPA's" - you are one of those.--Mike18xx (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mike18xx, please do not WP:BITE the new guy, you may also want to check your self on WP:OUTING.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of authority. Wikipedia has a long established set of policies, and AfD is one mechanism by which someone can start a discussion with other users as to whether or not those policies are being violated.  No one can unilaterally delete this article - things like this end by wp:rough consensus of policy-compliant discussion points. Kevin (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

KEEP: Someone please assist. It took looking through numerous uncensored search engines but, I found a news article date 12:01AM GMT 11 Mar 2008, In the Telegraph which would somewhat validate he worked for the government. Can someone site this?> I have no idea how to. US envoy admits role in Aldo Moro killing Also Steve R.Pieczenik is a verifiable member of CFR citing the CFR membership roster list CFR member roster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.217.251 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)  — 71.232.217.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP: what are you so afraid of that this guy has to be deleted....perhaps thou doth protest too much, hmm? May 5 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.27.179 (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)  — 75.133.27.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP: I think we should use whatever reliable information we can find. I think it is important to make the page semi-protected. Is there any information about this guys connection to the conspiracy theorists? That might be an interesting portion to add. Jhunt47 (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: This is absolutely ridiculous. I fear someone's narrow world view is being challenged and they want to shut out opposing information. Forget Alex Jones for a moment, Steve Pieczenik served as Deputy Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker. I haven't heard a single one of these hysterical, Wikipedia "vanguards" challenge this information. It's plainly obvious someone here is deathly concerned that having Dr. Pieczenik mentioned on Wikipedia allows his recent commentary on world events to become just a little "too accessible" to the mainstream. Honestly, stop the charade. Alex Jones also interviewed Hamid Gul, Noam Chomsky and Charlie Sheen; are we going to delete their articles too? What is this BS? Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you somehow not notice that only one person is actually supporting this deletion currently? And almost all Pieczenik's biographical information *was* initially being questioned, because multiple users could not find reliable sources to confirm any of it.  There's no point in attacking people for discussing a deletion.  Kevin (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only sources given for his having been "Deputy Assistant Secretary of State" are 1) his website and 2) an article that's clearly taking his word for it. Stronger independent sources needed to establish the claims made in the article, esp. given that the subject's truthfulness has been questioned. Vizjim (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are zero search-returns for "Pieczenik" in the National Archives or National Security Archives. I have increasing reason to disbelieve he was a "Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and/or Senior Policy Planner under Secretaries Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schultz and James Baker" over the course of three presidential administrations, and have added an to the Wiki entry after that specific claim. Most 1st-page Google returns for the specific employment phraseology (""Deputy Assistant Secretary of State") are in fact Pieczenik references on conspiracy blogs which reference the Wikipedia article as proof of his bona-fides. (It'd be richly ironic if he met required notability by being exposed as a fraud.)--Mike18xx (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is the 1985 NY Times reference not enough? What evidence do you have that they just took his word for it? You believe he lied to them as well and has been planning this "hoax" for 26 years? Admittedly I didn't find him on state.gov either, but it's not that high of a rank and they have many departments. Do they even list Deputy Assistants? Are any of you experts in Department of State affairs? KenricAshe (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC) — KenricAshe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * State Department credentials confirmed by Forbes.com "Pieczenik worked for the State Department under Henry Kissinger and is supposedly still a consultant for the State Department, though their PR department was of no use tracking him down. The Defense Department said the last he worked for them was under President Jimmy Carter." KenricAshe (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Credulous bio-page for Alex Jones conspiracy-theory guest"

The fact that someone was a guest in that show is irrelevant; your comment shows your bias.

"all listed references are to conspiracy websites"

Untrue, unless you call the websites of major newspapers and the CFR for example "conspiracy websites". Again, you show bias.

"all supporters on Talk page are new users who've joined for the sole purpose of defending the article."

Irrelevant ad-hominem attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.128.3.241 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While it is true that Mike18xx and also Kevin ("conspiracy theory crud") have shown bias for what they believe are reputable news sources (ironic when all the major networks are controlled by corporations with a conflict of interest and profit-from-war incentives), it is also true that Wikipedia has guidelines for editors and Mike18xx was correct in his observance of the Single-purpose account rule which is designed among other things to prevent abuse by Special Interest Groups. Before anyone posts they should read the fine manual. KenricAshe (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

. The New York Times of January 28, 1981 indicates Pieczenik is a former State Department psychiatrist. This may indicate he has sources within government he wishes to conceal. A site search within Nytimes.com show numerous (perhaps 50) literary connections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesjohnsonphd (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep mentioned sources sufficiently--Deineka (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Pieczenik does have mainstream credentials, and also has made contact with the Alex Jones show. This itself in quite interesting. I think for the benefit of conspiricist and non-conspiracist alike, he should be kept track of with as much factual data as possible. Are there objections to factual data? raherbst —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC).  — raherbst (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Pieczenik served with four secretaries of state, and he is the co-creator of Tom Clancy's Op-Center and Tom Clancy's Net Force paperback series. John Hyams (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you help us find confirmation somewhere that he actually served with four secretaries of state? I think that would address some of the concerns Mike has. Kevin (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's already been confirmed by Forbes that Pieczenik at the very least "worked for the State Department under Henry Kissinger". Mike obviously has extreme bias here: "It'd be richly ironic if he met required notability by being exposed as a fraud." He's judging it before it's known one way or the other. Should someone with such an obvious conflict of interest be allowed to edit this Wikipedia page? KenricAshe (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If it serves to get the SPAs to prove their case and rein in the spam-puffering (of which I observe that not one of you had any objection despite most of it being untrue; e.g., "author" and all that), then yes. Furthermore, him working under Kissinger does not automatically translate to him working under three other Secretaries of State as the article claims, either as a "Deputy Assistant Secretary" or in lesser capacity. -- Are you capable of verifying these claims, Kenric?--Mike18xx (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are sources that indicate he worked for the state department in some capacity, but there are not really any sources discussing in detail his specific positions or accomplishments there. Per WP:DIPLOMAT, for him to be notable in his capacity as a diplomat, those sources must exist. The mere fact that mike doesn't like Pieczenik doesn't mean he has a conflict of interest. If we didn't allow to edit articles that they had opinions about, barely anyone would be able to edit most articles - as an extreme example, think about how few people would be permitted to edit the bin Laden articles if we banned having an opinion. . Additionally, even editors that do have legitimate conflicts of interest are not typically prevented from editing articles, just discouraged from it and their edits are given greater scrutiny when they do make them. If you have problems with any of Mike's specific edits to the Pieczenik page, I would be happy to look them over again for you if you can provide diffs - or if you want a totally uninvolved editor, you can find someone willing to do so at one of the noticeboards I'm sure. Kevin (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Proof that Mike18xx is not qualified to edit this page: I just checked out his user page. First I see that he appears to be interested in military and religion, and there is a strong implication that he is "critical of Islam" (his own words). And then I viewed the history of his page. See where Mrathel removed offensive material. He used the word "faggots" and most importantly relevant to this discussion he said: "ALL LIBERAL PINKOS MUST DIE". It's ironic that he rails against other users submitting AfD reqeusts with the intent to manipulate Wikipedia content when THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE TRIED TO DO HERE. This hypocrite censor should have his editor privileges REVOKED! KenricAshe (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mrathel was removing vandalism on my page (see Kevin's commentary below). ...Kenric, you evaded my question to you, and instead attacked the messenger of what is, apparently, intolerable news regarding the presence or absence of this article. My opinion of Pieczenik is hardly hidden (and therefore BADFAITH) given that it's the lead comment in the Afd, whereas your interest in the matter is, shall we say, for the moment covert. Would it be unfair of me to surmise that you have a vested interest in promoting Pieczenik which is not dispassionately biographical? Might I suggest you put as much effort into verifying your man's bona fides as you do in perusing the back-pages of my user page?--Mike18xx (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, the fact that he has opinions about things does not mean he cannot edit this afd discussion or the main article page. Additionally, he didn't use the word faggot, and he didn't say that all liberals must die. Look at the page history, those were added by people other than Mike to his userpage. He did let the post stay up longer than I would have, but that in no way demonstrates that he's incapable of editing this page well. If you have problems with his edits, provide the diffs of SPECIFIC edits related to this article that you have a problem with. And do so on either a relevant noticeboard or the talk page for the article - not on this deletion discussion page. BTW, requesting sanctions on a user should be done at WP:AN/I or another noticeboard, not here. Kevin (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification and further education on Wikipedia rules. I'll also say it's interesting that he wasn't the one who deleted the comments, even though he previously deleted other irrelevant comments. And I'm not the one who started the debates in this discussion page about Pieczenik's credentials. KenricAshe (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire point of an Afd is to prompt the promoters of an article to get their act together. Prior to the Afd, the article was a spam-wallow slathered in embellishments if not outright falsehoods.--Mike18xx (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did revise my request on the talk page and no one has responded to it yet. Is there anyone else besides Mike who objects? KenricAshe (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The premise of the question "Is there anyone else beside Mike who objects" is the contained-assertion "No one besides Mike objects" -- and that is false. There's at least one "DELETE" recommendation on this page, and it isn't even mine. Now to the point: Do you have anything to add to the article, or will your routine here consist entirely of attacking other editors?--Mike18xx (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Are you kidding me? Why the HELL would you want to delete this?Terrorist96 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, but AfD discussions are not votes. Just saying 'keep' without providing an explanation of why you think it should be kept or a response to the concerns that have been brought up on this page doesn't really do much good for anything.   Kevin (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a so-called "Master Editor" and it is certainly my impression that a Keep here represents a vote.
 * But with only 55K edits, what the hell would I know, eh?
 * Varlaam (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. WP:NOTVOTE. Indicating keep/delete/merge etc is a useful summary of how a person feels, but deletion discussions are not votes and posting keep/delete/merge is only useful or potentially influential if you include a reason for your opinion. Kevin (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

For every WP policy, there is another which negates it. There is no screaming necessity for me to justify my vote, but I will so so anyway. He appears in this interesting article from Pakistan's The Nation (newspaper) – not the US magazine – about the theoretical death of Bin Laden: Bin Laden’s corpse has been on ice for nearly a decade. Make of it what thou wilt. Varlaam (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks for your opinion. We welcome you.
 * If there is, as you suggest, a policy (or evidence of community consensus somewhere) indicating that AfD discussions are votes or that there is a good reason to post !votes (which stands for "not a vote," btw) on AfD discussions without providing a rationale, please point me in its direction, I am genuinely curious to see it. You're right that there is no screaming necessity for you to justify your !vote, but AfD policy does explicitly state that !votes without a stated rationale will be given very little weight or outright ignored.  Kevin (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP THIS ARTICLE - let those who are able add more to it. There is no reason for deleting it other than suppression of information which will obviously be 'inconvenient' to some. The facile and much over-used expression 'conspiracy theorist' is just a way of dismissing with contempt prior to investigation. — CarriKP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:06, 9 May 2011  (UTC).  — CarriKP (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * STRONG KEEP: He is clearly on the CFR roster, there are a load of books on sale on Amazon with his name on it, for those reasons alone he deserves to be considered a notable. He's at least as notable as Maeve Binchy: and she has her own wikipedia article. And based on the number of books alone that he wrote, he's probably more notable than Nuala Ni Choncuir who also has her own wikipedia article or Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill: for that matter. Although I agree that any data that cannot be reliably verified should ofcourse be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmccone (talk • contribs) 17:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)  — Jmccone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep : Bio on businessweek.com. He's also appeared in a documentary wich was coproduced by and shown on a public french TV channel (2006). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpmcdo (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)  — Lpmcdo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * In the current state, this article does not stand a WP:Snow chance of being deleted, can we just call it a game now?--Duchamps_comb MFA 15:10, 11 May 2011 (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.