WhiteBear
Jedi Master
Dr. Steve Pieczenik was recently brought up in this thread, and I got a bad feeling about him, that he was "too good to be true"...especially after seeing the link to his Wikipedia page in the Infowars article with linktext saying "Pieczenik cannot be dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist”. His Wiki page is under consideration to be deleted for the following reasons.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Pieczenik#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Steve_Pieczenik said:Advertising
This page is an advertisement and should immediately be overhauled or deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.248.23 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed; this thing is codswallop.66.41.95.121 (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This definitely has to go. There's nothing objective about it at all. It seems created to justify and create credibility for his appearance on the Alex Jones show and the wild claims made about Osama bin Laden supposedly dying in 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.36.65 (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because... The guy seems notable enough, it's just that the article is extraordinarily poorly-written. It needs revision, perhaps all the way back to its earlier stub status, then revised from there, but not deletion.--Enigmocracy (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Given zero references, I see little reason not to conclude that this article was not deliberately puffed up in prelude to his recent appearance on the Alex Jones show -- with every subsequent mention on the 'net breathlessly linking this very Wiki entry in a huge circle-jerk.66.41.95.121 (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I did some more research on the guy - you are right. There are no reliable sources to back up this guy whatsoever. Aside from extremely scarce mentions in mainstream news media, all you have is infowars stuff. I rescind my original opposition, and agree with you: this page should be deleted.Enigmocracy (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree a lot needs to be changed, but it does appear like his credentials are legitimate. see http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=33213457 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.8.177 (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Even your suggested BusinessWeek link comes up empty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.36.65 (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)