Deletion of Integral Biomathics

Comment: The initial publication (arXiv:cs/0703002) appears to be pure content-free buzzword salad, and its approving citations of Copeland, Rössler, and Siegelmann are also warning signs. But of course, all that doesn't prevent it from being actually notable, and by my usual standards for academic concepts (multiple independent groups producing peer-reviewed publications) it passes. Nevertheless, there are two bigger issues guiding me to the conclusion that it should be deleted. First, as DGG says, it appears to be a citation circle or in Wikipedia terms, a walled garden, but one that is mostly out in academia rather than on Wikipedia itself. As such it is essentially |on the fringe and needs non-fringe sources to satisfy |our demand for a neutral point of view. But those sources don't exist. Second, and more critically, Wikipedia content needs to be |verifiable, and it can't be verifiable if it is deliberately incomprehensible. The only content we have here is an echo of the same buzzword salad of its sources. If we would try to |make this readable by rewriting it into words of simple and plain meaning, it would all vanish in a mist. Wikipedia articles need to actually be about something, not merely to have the semblance of being about something
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:TECHNICAL)