Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spatial complexity


 * 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.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 15:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Spatial complexity

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * WP:TNT (changed !vote). I still believe that the subject may be notable, but the article is poor to the degree of uselessness. I will try to do some research. I definitely see the concept is coherently used in areas related to geography, but most sources are behind the paywall. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * explain the coherent... -- RTFM. "In mathematics, spatial complexity is defined 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)


 * 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)
 * I will take a look and maybe change the vote. 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)
 * I am aware that Fivos is a given name. I didn't call him Papadimitriou because I didn't want to get him confused with Christos, who is much more famous. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * No. Spatial complexity can be measured in million different ways. Same as distance may be measured in numerous ways, and these often unrelated to each other. Loew Galitz (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But when you measure the same distance in different ways, you get the same answer. This is what it means to be measuring the same thing in numerous ways.  This would not be the case for "spatial complexity". Please also note the policy on bludgeoning. Danstronger (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See? You even didnt understand what I said. Please also notice I am not bludgeoning: I even wrote that I am inclined to change my !vote. BTW I strongly recommend to reread what WP:BLUDGEON actually is and don't try to shut people down when you dislike discussion. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. --JBL (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. 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. --JBL (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? 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. --JBL (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. Loew Galitz (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Another example of the 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 very next reference uses none of these ideas, instead employing ideas from algebraic graph theory like the spectral radius. Ditto the 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. Such spatial, very complex. XOR&#39;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. 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. XOR&#39;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. Loew Galitz (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.