Okay, after looking quickly over the Melody Amber chess tournament article history. It looks as though User:Guido den Broeder wished to use his co-authored books as references in the article. User:GijsvdL and (from my memory) one or two other users found the sources to be self-promotional. We're here to figure out what's going on. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to see it analysed. I'd like to add, though, that IMHO it works best if chess articles are edited by chess players, stock market articles by editors knowledgable in that area, etc. If all chess players agree that it is relevant and neutral to include tournament books, then I believe they should be listened to, and not opposed by users who have never shown any interest in chess articles before, and insist that some books should be removed while other books can stay. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thing is... there's a policy entitled WP:COI. You're adding in your own books to an article about which you've written. That's a conflict of interest, no? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is. Btw, I also added the other tournament books that I knew of. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)