Deletion of Tricomplex numbers

Comment: possibly salt, and possibly refer to the board of ethics at the relevant university for the sock/meat-puppetry.  This is self-promotion and publication of original research which is not otherwise notable. There is obvious quacking in many of the "Save" votes.  The tri-complex articles are clearly not notable and serve only a promotional purpose; the tetrabrot article might be on something notable, but is  worthy in its current state, and I can't easily find any reliable sources that could repair the article (both Google search and EBSCOHost have nothing useful
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: A quick check of Mathscinet for "tricomplex" (''anywhere'') indicates that the commutative and associative 8-dimensonal tricomplex algebra has been studied and books/articles published which treat the subject. It is true that the algebra of tricomplex numbers is less notable and far less studied than the non-commutative non-associative 8-dimensional algebra of octonions or Cayley numbers, which plays a significant role in mathematics (particularly the theory of Jordan algebras). Writing that the subject of tricomplex numbers is , however, is simply wrong: the subject may be dull and/or uninteresting, but it is certainly not original research. The other neologisms above, invented by researchers from the University of Quebec—puns on Mandelbrot, etc—appear in published works but have not been more widely adopted and as such are unnotable: the label  is inappropriate
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:OR)

Comment: There are a handful of papers listed in Google scholar that cite the main reference here, but they're mostly also by combinations of the same authors, so I don't see the in-depth coverage by multiple independent groups needed to pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: all for violating core policy |NO Original Research, content undersouced not shown to meet GNG no evidence of its importance ''&thinsp;&mdash;''&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)