Deletion of Reverse funnel system

Comment: Although I agree that the current references are problematic, the article can be improved by rewording to remove any bias and adding more references, efforts that Reswobslc has consistently blocked by getting the article (semi-)protected,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=215346604http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=238500529http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=241958486 reverting, and screaming "it's spam spam spam" rather than engaging in a constructive discussion on the Talk:Reverse funnel system|Talk page.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reverse_funnel_system&diff=238382078&oldid=238320807http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reverse_funnel_system&diff=238399191&oldid=238398809http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reverse_funnel_system&diff=238656046&oldid=238599605 Reswobslc has created the article himself as a redirect to the pyramid scheme article, where the term is not mentioned at all. Obviously, this is not a proper use of a redirect per  and now that the most recent request for protection is declined because of improper use to settle a content disputehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=241853498&oldid=241851174, he resorts to inproper use of AfD per #Discussion. As for notability, the |Google test gives 454,000 results for "reverse funnel system" http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=%22reverse+funnel+system%22. The article implies that this is the result of Google bombing. The subject seems to be heavily advertised and reliable information on the web is completely overwhelmed by the Google bombing; Wikipedia would do potential victims of the alleged scam a favor by objectively documenting what the scam involves
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:REDIRECT||WP:DP||WP:GOOGLE)

Comment: The article in its current form doesn't contain any references ''at all'', as long as we ignore those stupid guidelines like , ,  (who cares about those silly jargony WP acronyms anyway), the article is great.  Maybe it should be |featured
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:FA)

Comment: Article does not assert |notability using |reliable, third-party sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)