Deletion of Combinatorial hierarchy

Comment: I agree that the physics aspect of it is fringe or at best numerology; the mathematical side appears to be just standard Boolean algebra buried under a pile of obscurantist redefinitions. The question is whether it is notable as fringe and whether we have the reliable sources that identify it as such and clarify its connection to standard mathematics, allowing us to write a properly  article according to the consensus of mainstream scholarship. It appears that we do not have those sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: in Frederick Parker-Rhodes.  The author seems more notable than combinatorial hierarchy and there's already a little coverage at the BLP article.  If any important detail is missing there it could be merged, but a separate article is unnecessary and the topic by itself does not meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This is deep . Noyes self-published papers about it on his own journal, the "Journal of the Western Regional Chapter of the Alternative Natural Philosophy Association"https://web.archive.org/web/20121107151610/http://www.stanford.edu/~pnoyes/ascii.htm. They are self-admittedly outside the mainstream, which is not Wikipedia's thing. The fascinating story about it is told here https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9707020. Also note that the main reference https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00670503 is published in the notoriously cranky Int. J. Theor. Phys. In summary: the theory itself is not published in any reliable source, there is a reliable source describing it as fringe (found by the nominator), and the authors themselves describe it as fringe. Kill it with fire
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Seems not notable even as 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)