Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spatial complexity

Spatial complexity

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not a well-defined term. Fivos Papadimitriou wrote a book of this title last year but that doesn't make it notable. We have some extremely vague descriptions and a list of partial-title-matches from a literature search. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Malformed nomination. Notable subject. The fact that the article sucks ("not a well defined term") is not a reason for deletion. In fact, the term is sufficiently defined for those who can read and comprehend the subject. That someone wrote a bokk does make it notable. The "list of partial-title-matches" is falsehood: it is the list of references. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sad story with Wikipedia is repeating, people ignorant on a scientific subject express opinion on whether that subject is worth having in an encyclopedia or not. If you see the term "spatial complexity" in the references, it was obviously picked up by other scientists, it's not just the original coiner of that term. Also if you see publications, they're in notable scientific journals, where they're peer-reviewed by scientists, not by the average Joe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8AC0:100:2C93:8FBA:D31C:D084 (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my fav quote: Wikipedia editors and administrators do not need a degree in cosmic and particle science or quantum mechanics to apply Wikipedia policies. - user Kudpung
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. Loew Galitz (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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. Danstronger (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- explain the coherent... -- RTFM. "In mathematics, spatial complexity is defined ^[1] as the complexity of a spatial entity". ... "spatial complexity can be measured by two 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. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look and maybe change the vote. @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. 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. Danstronger (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ Papadimitriou, Fivos (2020). Spatial Complexity: Theory, Mathematical Methods and Applications. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-030-59670-5.

[:0-1] Papadimitriou, Fivos (2020). Spatial Complexity: Theory, Mathematical Methods and Applications. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-030-59670-5.

[1]