Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spatial complexity: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Danstronger (talk | contribs) |
Loew Galitz (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 12:
*:That quoted, the nomination is without merit per wikipedia policies, the nom didnt carry out due diligence, and is oblivious to the fact that AfD is not a cleanup. [[User:Loew Galitz|Loew Galitz]] ([[User talk:Loew Galitz|talk]]) 07:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
::*{{re|Loew Galitz}} "Spatial" and "complexity" are common words; the fact that they have occasionally appeared together does not prove "spatial complexity" is a notable, coherent concept, and a book written does not imply notability (see [[WP:GNG]]; we need significant independent secondary coverage). Given the content of the article now, it looks like it is just a phrase that is used in different ways by different people, which would make it not an appropriate article topic (specific metrics could get their own articles). If you think that's wrong, it would be much more helpful for you to explain the coherent concept that spatial complexity represents, rather than to just criticize the nomination. [[User:Danstronger|Danstronger]] ([[User talk:Danstronger|talk]]) 12:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
::** {{tq|explain the coherent...}} -- RTFM. "In mathematics, '''spatial complexity''' is defined <ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Papadimitriou|first=Fivos|url=https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030596705|title=Spatial Complexity: Theory, Mathematical Methods and Applications|date=2020|publisher=Springer International Publishing|isbn=978-3-030-59670-5|language=en}}</ref> as the [[complexity]] of a [[wikt:spatial|spatial]] entity". ... "spatial complexity can be measured by two [[Metric (mathematics)|metrics]]: one based on [[run-length encoding]] and another on [[edit distance]]". Now, in your turn, please explain what you see incoherent here, and I will be glad to explain, although it is not my freakig business: !voter's ignoance is not an argument at AfD. On the other hand, Eppstein's opinion below is properly argumentative as should be. [[User:Loew Galitz|Loew Galitz]] ([[User talk:Loew Galitz|talk]]) 17:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. This is someone throwing buzzwords together with no depth, backed up by an impressive list of references almost none of which are actually on the subject, to the extent that we can even discern what the subject is. The only real source (the Fivos P. book) has only one preprint citation in Google Scholar, so we are totally lacking the in-depth reliable coverage of his work that would make this pass [[WP:GNG]], even if it were reframed as an article about the book rather than an article about its fuzzy theories. There may be something real to write about measures of complexity of spatial structures, but nothing in this article contributes towards that, so beyond the failure of [[WP:GNG]], [[WP:TNT]] also applies. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 08:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
*:I will take a look and maybe change the vote. {{ping|David Eppstein}} FYI, Fivos is a given name; Papadimitriou is a surname. SInce yuo have expertise in computational geometry, I am pretty sure you should have heard this surname. (I admit, on a quiock glance, I misread the name for"Papadimitriou, Christos" and desided that this person must have written something of note. Now, as I said, I am willing to reconsider my judgement. [[User:Loew Galitz|Loew Galitz]] ([[User talk:Loew Galitz|talk]])
| |||