Deletion of 2-4-8 tax blend

Comment: The author claims that the article was written to "share the 2-4-8 Tax Blend plan with the world", going on to note "why else would any article be written".  The author should acquaint himself with Wikipedia's |conflict of interest guidelines.  Most Wikipedia articles are written not to share one's great ideas with the world, but to report on ideas that have already been proven great (well, at least |notable).  Using Wikipedia to share one's own great idea is the exact practice that Wikipeida's OR|original research policy is intended to prevent.  The author is confused about what part of this article constitutes original research.  I will answer that in one sentence: the part where the author asserts that this tax plan is a good answer to the current economic woes.  Since the tax plan has ''not'' been reviewed in any major economics journal or text, we have only the author's own word for this conclusion -- this is the very definition of original research.  The author goes on to claim that posting comments on many different news sites is a perfectly legitimate means of "vetting" his tax plan.  That may well be.  But it still constitutes a |primary source.  Wikipedia is not a place for this user to vet his tax plan, or to |get the word out.  Wikipedia is a place to report on issues that have already been vetted and whose word is already out.  I am not at all concerned with whether the plan is constitutional or not -- that is an issue for legal scholars, not Wikipedians.  The issue here is whether the plan is a notable event in the financial history of this country, or one man's manifesto that has been well publicized by that one man
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:N||WP:NOR||WP:PS||WP:SOAP)

Comment: I'm all for |assuming good faith but this is really a bit silly. Beyond the obvious |conflict of interest editing (which the user in question should note is always strongly discouraged), a good number of the sources are clearly |self-published by the editor in question, who created both the subject tax plan and the article. Given the cross referencing between the two, one can only conclude that a significant portion of the material in the article is a blatant combination of |original research and |self-promotion by an . The suggestion that TaxNetWealth.com ''"falls into the catagory'' (sic) ''of an expert website on a particular issue"'' and so should be considered an independent |reliable source is patently false. It is owned and copyrighted by the person who wrote the article in question. It is certainly not independent of the subject. Of the "news" coverage sources some are broken links and others don't mention ''2-4-8 tax blend'' in any way at all. The final suggestion - that depriving WP of an article about his tax plan would ''"leave a great void"'' because it is the ''"the only viable plan"'' - says it all really. Almost a contender for |''Speedy Delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:COI||WP:SELFPUBLISHED||WP:OR||WP:PROMO||WP:SPA||WP:RS||WP:SPEEDY)