Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2-4-8 tax blend
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
— [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart111''']] [[User talk:Stalwart111|(talk)]], 06:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:AGF||WP:COI||WP:SELFPUBLISHED||WP:OR||WP:PROMO||WP:SPA||WP:RS||WP:SPEEDY (Wikipedia:Assume good faith)