Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pied Pipers of Babylon
So we are to believe that the single keep vote on the AfD is not the book's author, when he just happens to pull out a PDF of a fringe newspaper article that's 23 years old?  Who else but an author would have such a thing in his files?  The mere participation of the author here is blatant  and .  Is there anybody ''besides'' the author who wants to stand up for the article the author wrote about his own project?  He writes the article, he shows up for the AfD, he votes "keep" multiple times.  This is really too much and a block may be in order--he's already been warned for , after all, and it had no effect.  And even more to the point, since all we have is one article from a fringe newspaper 23 years ago, it's clear to see that this entry fails .  The Library of Congress doesn't mean a damned thing in terms of notability either, since any spammer, self-publisher, or vanity-press author (such as this guy) can send copies to the Library of Congress and they will put them somewhere in their immense basement
— User:Qworty, 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:COI||WP:SPAM||WP:COI||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest)