Deletion of Unification theory (2nd nomination)

Comment: as nonsense. It's pretty clear that  applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Does not rise to the standards of |fringe notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Almost at the level of speedying. The article is poorly sourced and the topic is highly pseudoscientific. It is highly unlikely that proper sources (per  and the /PS|Pseudoscience ArbCom decision) could be found. If there ''are'' such sources, they will most likely only cover the material enough to warrant a short mention in another article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:ARB)

Comment: per  and . Amazingly this article version looks rather different than the previously deleted one (are there two fringe theories by this name?), so CSD G4 doesn't apply. After deletion a disambih should be created, pointing to the topics in physics and artificial intelligence respectively. To the anom editor: I can't fully exclude the possibility, that there is something worth including in all this, but you just didn't get the message across in this attempt. Do some reading in Wikipedia, both articles and policies, starting with . Ask at the Philosophy Portal for suggestions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:FRINGE||WP:5P)