Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral Biomathics

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Integral Biomathics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the references for this seem to be a core group of those involved citeing each other. There seems to be no general recognition of it as a scientific approach. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quote: "The operative framework of Integral Biomathics is defined as a multi-perspective approach to knowledge production..." Trouble is, that definition has already been used for "Multidimensional bioinformatics", "Energy synchrodynamics", "Neuroanalytical integration theory", and many more I haven't made up yet. The long list of references is almost entirely the work of a single first author. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is amazingly content-free - that article reads as if it had been constructed from buzzwords as part of a Sokal-type sting. What with the overwhelming reliance on one primary author's publications, I don't think the notability is there either.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in view of above comments. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.