Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spatial complexity: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
XOR'easter (talk | contribs) |
XOR'easter (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 16:
*: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]])
*'''Delete''' "Spatial complexity" can mean a million different things, but they are largely unrelated to each other. This is not a case of one ''concept'' used in many fields, but one ''phrase'' (note [[WP:NOTDICT]]) used in many fields to mean different things, and for different purposes. The meanings discussed in the article and the Papadimitriou book are unrelated to the meanings used in almost all of the references. There is no underlying coherent concept here that is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Perhaps a disambiguation page would be appropriate if multiple of the meanings of the phrase were notable, but that does not appear to be the case at this time. [[User:Danstronger|Danstronger]] ([[User talk:Danstronger|talk]]) 17:59, 1 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. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 18:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
| |||