Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pied Pipers of Babylon

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. What has been brought up as possible sources to warrant an article on this book, has been found insufficient. Tikiwont (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pied Pipers of Babylon

Pied Pipers of Babylon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Self-published book by author with “law degree” from unaccredited “law school”; no discernable previously published third party references to the book have been located that would signify notability for the book, and book fails to meet criteria for notability for books listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#Criteria Famspear (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominator’s additional comment: The subject of the article is an apparently self-published "law book" on Common law by an individual named Verl K. Speer who claims to have a "Doctor of Common Law" degree from something called the "Universal Life University School of Law."

The only thing I have been able to locate on the "Universal Life University School of Law" is a web site purporting to advertise for a law school by that name. The site states that an individual can "[e]arn your degree of Doctor at the Common Law and become a member of the prestigious Universal Bar Association - an association dedicated to the restoration of law and justice." The cost is only $295 for the degree -- in the form of a "freewill offering.” See [1].

It’s a bit unclear from the article talk page, but my understanding from my discussions with the article's creator there is that he/she disputes whether the "Universal Life University School of Law" mentioned on that web site is the same “Universal Life University School of Law" at which Verl Speer received his "law degree."

At any rate, there is no such law school, or at least no such accredited law school of which I am aware. Thus, the author seems to have no credentials in the field of law -- which is the subject of the book.

On the book itself, I have located no references to this "law book" that would establish notability for the book. Famspear (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as lacking notability. Sounds not unlike the outfit who gave me my "medical degree", the Kings Cross Upstairs Medical College and Institute of Nail Care. :) Xdenizen (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Created by an extremely aggressive WP:Single-purpose account intent on flouting WP:COI and WP:RS policies at every turn. Likes to edit war over tags on "his" article, constantly deleting them--real ownership issues here. Likes to leave nice little droppings of spam for us to step into and clean up too [2]. Of course, when we finally analyze all of the underlying facts in the case, it turns out that his self-published, completely non-notable book fails everything under WP:BK. The author himself has no notability at all, ringing up a grand total of 13 Ghits[3], and every single one of them consisting of self-promoting spam on obscure blogs and forums. Apparently, the biggest thing the book in question has ever had going for it is this WP article itself, a fact that must account for the desperate machinations to preserve it. Let's get rid of this thing now. If it's recreated, salt vigorously. Qworty (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability in reliable sources is provided. Terraxos (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• A degree from the university of life? I thought that was an old joke. But here is their home page (watch out for popups!)... did I mention Delete and salt? I can't see any evidence of real notability. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The link above for the University is a fake created to discredit the author, telephone # (207) 784-2266 goes to a company called New England Home Mortgage. The domain name 20m.com that hosts free websites was registered in 2000 and not 1985 when the university that the author attended was in existence. Where is the due dilligence people? Its so obvious. I have only put this wiki entry up because this is a work of history which has been hidden for a reason and I guess will continue to be hidden atleast on wiki. I have no interest in it otherwise or for any personal gain. It seems that these policies restrict innovation or new information, only a continuation of something that is already established or known, exciting. Rather than downloading the book and reading it, which would involve too much effort for many of you, you simply discredit and move to the next post. Goodluck, this community obviously continues to be an irrelevant source of information, just opinions of others hoping for the truth but can never be taken "seriously" [4].

*Keep(duplicate deleted) Book is located at the Library of Congress classified as Subjects: Law--United States--Popular works. Natural law--Popular works. Law--Philosophy--Popular works. Justice--Popular works. [5]

*Keep(duplicate deleted) Book Review from The Spotlight,

Image:Thespotlight-piedpipersofbabylon.png

Thumbnailed image

"the largest-circulation periodical on the far right in the United States". Starwalk3r (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

*Keep(duplicate deleted) Link to book review [6]21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwalk3r (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC) — Starwalk3r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I hope that you don't think I created the "fake" webpage or that I have any interest in "discrediting the author", which is perhaps implied by the post above. If you know the URL for the university's "real" web-page, it might be a good idea to post it - the only links I can find seem to imply that it is a diploma mill. Better than posting links to the university, though, would be posting links to any evidence that this book meets wikipedia's standards for notability. I'll save you the trouble of looking them up and say here that your best bet is to demonstrate that the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. 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 WP:COI and WP:SPAM. 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 WP:COI, 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 WP:RS. 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. Qworty (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment by nominator: Dear SheffieldSteel: Perhaps the link to which user Starwalk3r is referring is the one that I posted above, as he/she made the same accusation a few days ago on the talk page for the article where I had posted the link. However, I'm not sure.

And Starwalk3r, in any case, it's unclear why you are claiming that any of the linked materials to be "fakes" that would be "designed to discredit the author." At first I thought perhaps you meant that the web site itself had been designed by someone to discredit Verl Speer. Perhaps, however, your intent was instead to say that I provided the link for the purpose of discrediting Verl Speer (even if the web site itself was not designed for that purpose). It's just not clear to me what you're driving at. In any case, Starwalk3r has not provided any independent evidence that there ever was a real law school called the "Universal Life University School of Law," or that Verl Speer has a real law degree, or that Verl Speer's book has ever been significantly recognized as important or authoritative in the world of legal publications.

In any case, editor SheffieldSteel has reiterated the problem. You, Starwalk3r are the creator of the article and you are the person ostensibly wanting to keep the article -- yet your argument for retention seems in the form of statements like "this is a work of history which has been hidden for a reason". Even if that is true, that is not a valid argument for notability.

And Starwalk3r, why in the world are you suggesting that Wikipedia editors download the book and read it? The high opinion of Wikipedia editors is not what would make a book "notable" for purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia rules do not allow Wikipedia editors to evaluate the book and, on our own, declare it to be notable based on what we happen to have read in the book. Notability is a determination by the editors of how independent third parties view the book, not how Wikipedia editors view the book. Each and every Wikipedia editor might think the book is the most important book in the world, but that does not make it notable for purposes of having a Wikipedia article about it. The rules and guidelines have been quoted to you, yet you continue to push the article for this book based on an obvious affinity you feel for, and have expressed for, the book itself, or for the presumably important message contained in the book, rather than addressing the Wikipedia notability guidelines.

Now, Starwalk3r, you have posted a reference to the fact that the book is found in the Library of Congress. Wow. Did you know that essentially every other book for which the copyright claim has been registered in the United States is found in the Library of Congress? That makes the book worthy of an encyclopedia article?

Finally, you, Starwalk3r, have posted a reference to the book review in The Spotlight. At least that's something. In my view, however, that book review does not make the book notable for purposes of Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Still another comment by nominator: OK, I now see that Starwalk3r actually was referring to the link posted by editor Sheffield Steel. So, Starwalk3r has essentially made the similar accusations about two different web sites, links to which were provided by two different editors (by Sheffield Steel and myself). Starwalk3r, since you seem to know so much Verl Speer his book and the "real" "Universal Life University School of Law," why don't you tell everyone, just for kicks, where this "law school" was located. (I realize this is getting a bit tangential, so my apologies to all Wikipedia editors; it's nearing the end of tax season, and I'm working late on a Friday). Famspear (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

*Nominator comment: OK, based on what I've looked at, I will now assume that Starwalk3r was indeed trying to say that the site I linked (the skeptic site) is not really a site for the "Universal Life University School of Law," but might actually be a site trying to discredit the Universal Life University School of Law. And I see now that Starwalk3r might be right about that. I don't know about the site that editor Sheffield Steel linked to. Nevertheless, score one point for Starwalk3r! Now, the request to Starwalk3r is reiterated: Please show how the book, Pied Pipers of Babylon, is notable -- using the Wikipedia rules for notability. Famspear (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

*Keep (duplicate deleted) Comment by article's creator: Yes Famspear I was referring to the site, not the user who posted the site in regards to the website of the university being a fake to discredit the author. The only nobility I have been able to find was that of a review which was included as a photocopy in my copy of the book I had purchased and was from an independent source which apparently, according to Wikipedia (Circulation of The Spotlight peaked in the early 1980s at around 200,000, when it was the largest-circulation periodical on the far right in the United States. [7]), had an audience with "the largest-circulation periodical on the far right in the United States". As for me being the author, that doesnt even make sense. I am in Canada and the author by now, if still alive, is in his 80s and is an American. So due to the age of this book being 23 years old, and at the time of its publishing, the information was well over 20 years ahead of its time, and since the review at the time was provided by an independent publication who's critical commentary was non-trivial and goes "past a simple plot summary"(This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews.[8]) and due to the lack of technology at the time of its publishing, archive records of multiple reviews are not within arms reach and easily attainable. I believe that this one review from the spotlight is just proof for nobility. Starwalk3r (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwalk3r (talk • contribs) 02:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Abysmally fails WP:BK. The book's sole defender is basing the book's supposed significance on this single guideline: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." None of that happens to be true for this book. The book has not been the subject of multiple published works. The single review offered was not in a publication "serving a general audience." It's time to delete this vanity article now. Its WP:single-purpose account defense went toboggoning way down into WP:CRANK a long time ago. Qworty (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Clueless Qworty, this is my first posting on here. Not just an SPA like your CMB imagined. Starwalk3r (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no matter how the article got written. DGG (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2008 (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.