Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spatial complexity: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Loew Galitz (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Scottywong (talk | contribs) →Spatial complexity: Closed as delete (XFDcloser) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
===[[:Spatial complexity]]===▼
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''delete'''. [[User talk:Scottywong|<span style="font:bold 15px 'Bradley Hand','Bradley Hand ITC';color:#044;text-shadow:0 0 4px #033,0 0 10px #077;"> —⁠Scotty<span style="color:#fff;">Wong</span>⁠— </span>]] 15:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
▲===[[:Spatial complexity]]===
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|1=Spatial complexity}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spatial complexity|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 1#{{anchorencode:Spatial complexity}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1056975319/cur|edits since nomination]])
Line 24 ⟶ 29:
***** {{tq|Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at Articles for deletion.... Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. ... They always have to have the last word .... While they may have some very valid points, they get lost due to the dominant behavior and others are less likely to consider their viewpoints because of their behavior.}} Seems pretty on-the-nose to me. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 12:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
******In other words you prefer to slap a label rather than address valid criticism. Especially impressive is your cherry-picking in the quotation. I had almost believed you. Good no know never tp talk to you. [[User:Loew Galitz|Loew Galitz]] ([[User talk:Loew Galitz|talk]]) 17:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
******* I have no position on the substantive questions, I merely observed someone bludgeoning a discussion and then behaving like a dick when they were politely asked to stop, and I thought it might help if an uninvolved editor reinforced the point. You can prove me wrong by not responding to this or any other comment in the AfD; then I'll sure feel stupid. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 01:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
********Goodness gracious. You jumped in on '''December 3''' acvcusing me being a dick while I have changed my vote on '''decemberr 1''' already. Who is an obnoxious dick now? [[User:Loew Galitz|Loew Galitz]] ([[User talk:Loew Galitz|talk]]) 19:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
********* I'm ... not trying to get you to change your vote. Incidentally, while it's nice of you to prove me right like this, maybe next time don't. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 02:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
********** And you proved me right as well. YOU jumped into a discussion and started throwing accusations around. There are AfD discussions way longer than this one and people discuss each other's challenged calmly without calling each other dick. [[User:Loew Galitz|Loew Galitz]] ([[User talk:Loew Galitz|talk]]) 19:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Another example of the [[Bag-of-words model|bag-of-words problem]]: a couple ordinary words get smushed together to make a technical term, leading to countless false positives and the conflation of separate topics (i.e., [[WP:SYNTH]]). For example, the introduction says that spatial complexity is "eventually algorithmic", and the definition in the text (sourced to the 2020 book) insists that it is defined using either run-length encoding or edit distance. The [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.08.023 very next reference] uses none of these ideas, instead employing ideas from [[algebraic graph theory]] like the [[spectral radius]]. Ditto the [https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036139996306833 next reference after that]: once again, no algorithmic information, run-length encoding, or anything of the sort. It's all [[WP:REFBOMB]]-ing unrelated publications that happened to say "hey, this pattern looks complicated". There's no coherent subject here, no care put into the choice of references, and no text worth preserving. And I need to spare a moment for that opening sentence: "spatial complexity is defined as the complexity of a spatial entity" — so, spatial complexity is defined as the spatial complexity. [[Doge|Such spatial, very complex]]. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 18:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
**"spatial complexity is defined as the complexity of a spatial entity" - nothing wrong with this definition, and no, spatial complexity is '''not''' defined as the spatial complexity. [[User:Loew Galitz|Loew Galitz]] ([[User talk:Loew Galitz|talk]]) 22:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
***The "definition" is completely empty. It imparts no information to the reader. The different sources thrown into the page all define "complexity" in different ways, when they bother to give it even a semi-quantitative definition at all. This page offers nothing but an illusion of coherence. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 00:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
****I already agreed the article sucks. I was going to fix it quickly, but decided it is easier to change my vote :-) By the way there is nothing wrong with apparently "empty" definition, as long as it is subsequently elaborated. Take for example "[[Computational complexity]]": "the computational complexity or simply complexity of an algorithm is the amount of resources required to run it." I say it is just as empty as it can be, if taken in isolation. (What resources? electricity? sheets of paper? beer? ... ) Continuing to read the lede will not make you wiser. Some statements are gibberish or even false in general. [[User:Loew Galitz|Loew Galitz]] ([[User talk:Loew Galitz|talk]]) 01:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||