I get what you're saying, I really do. It's a bit capricious to say "ok, this book was published by an author who apparently underwent no peer review so it does not get wikiprotection but this OTHER book was published by an author who was at least mentioned in this other book so it's valid." There's no rhyme nor reason for the choice, just someone saying that it isn't important enough for wikipedia just because either the moderators (or whatever they call themselves) didn't like the source or realized there weren't a lot of them.
Who are these people to say "oh, it's just one book? Then it doesn't count" and more importantly, are there any lines to be drawn? If it had been cited by a handful of websites, would that be enough viability for the theory? What if those websites only obtained the information from Wikipedia? If I go out tomorrow and print my own book about the concept, which I then get on Amazon, will that be enough to return the article?
But Wikipedia's argument, or at least that of the defenders of deletion, is that it was just one man on a pulpit. If I speak eloquently on how I think blank CDs are, in fact, a veritable mini-world and that burning them reprograms the people into data storage units, my theory would not pass muster and would not belong there. Just printing a pamphlet with my theory on it should not make it valid and does nothing to increase the scientific standing of my belief. Paying for a nice binding also does nothing to increase the scientific standing it just means I had an extra buck fifty per copy. If I make a website promoting my book, it does not make the theory any more credible. And finally, to the Wikipedia argumetn: if I just go to a website and add information about my book, it does not make the theory any more credible. And just because nobody has taken the time to publish an article saying that his theory has no basis and is probably false doesn't make it correct.
It seems like Wikipedia is trying to stand as the gatekeeper between "legitimate" information and a half-million articles that are nothing more than "hey, wouldn't it be cool if the world were, like, totally on the back of a turtle. I'm going to call it turtology and post it to Wikipedia."
As for this article, I personally think that Wikipedia should just own it. Post a new article saying "hey, this man published a book 20 years ago. It was never peer-reviewed, but was subsequently republished in a journal of fringe science in an issue also covering warp drives (although to be honest, I don't know what was actually in that issue, the warp drives was just mentioned in another comment.) In 200x, the author added his article to Wikipedia where it was deleted as an example of original research, prohibited by Wikipedia's terms. News of this long-lasting "error" and it's belated "correction" however had spread to various websites and led to some controversy over the policy against non-original research."
Insert links where appropriate. Maybe even start a list of famous wikipedia controversies. End of story, for now. For the most part, people will forget that this "long term vandalism" had ever happened and it'll be a yet another internet furor (hello YTMD, Star Wars kid, first post) that came, went and now is remembered only in the link tags of slashdotters. Discussing the controversy does not necessarily give the theory any more or less scientific credibility.