Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Physics Handbook

Physics Handbook
I decided to place this nomination after seeing the arguments about this book, Mathematics Fundamentals (which is already an RfD) and Physics Course (to which the same considerations apply), and I am basing it on WB:FORK. I am aware of that not being official policy but the argument still stands (as per the snowball clause, or whatever you call it here in Wikibooks). The point is that, while the author is more than welcome to start from scratch the Physics books at vi.wikibooks.org if they do not exist, it makes no sense to have a book like this one alongside the existing ones in Category:Physics. Although the quality and depth of the books available there appears to (after a five minute inspection) vary widely, consider a book such as Physics Study Guide, which covers pretty much all of the material available here with overwhelmingly better quality. As for the quality issues with the book, they are too numerous to mention here, so I provided a sample analysis of the first module in my userspace: User:Duplode/On the Physics Handbook Wikibook. Duplode (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment: Many people will start a new book on a subject rather than add to an existing one due to differences in writing style or personal ideas as to what the topic should cover. If there are other books on the same topic, with the same scope and intended audience, then the best content from both should be merged together to create a single book that is better than either one was before.  Wikibooks has enough stubs as it is; we should be trying to get as many books as complete as possible. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have sympathies with both of the positions above. One difficulty is that the same arguments apply to many books by this author.  Communication Course, Electronics Course, etc.  (Just search for "Quach Trung" for a longer list).   Since the author is blindly translating books from vi.wikibooks, without really looking at what is available there is lots of repetition.  And perhaps several books that are like Physics Handbook.  In general, merging seems like the right thing to do.  The difficulty is that many of the pages should be (in my opinion) "empty merge."  Meaning the page in one book is so much more complete and well written then the page in a the second book there is not information to include.  So then what do you do? A history merge is out of order, so a speedy delete seems like the way to go.  But then what a slippery slope we stand on.  I can only imagine a future where two people are arguing about whose page is better and the "empty merge" their competitor away because the feel their page is so much better.  And if you really feel every page is an empty merge isn't an RfD more sensible then marking every page as a speedy delete.  I haven't look closely enough to know if for this book I would call every page an empty merge.  It might be that one of the many tables could be a nice addition to some page?  So I'll just leave my thoughts as a comment for now. Thenub314 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have done many merges. Note that a merge can be a result of a RfD, but it isn't forced, like as in creating a timeframe, (probably it will result in a later RfD if it lingers).
 * The merge in itself, as I have recently stated in a reply to a Wikibookians asking for clarification (and to Adrignola), after a merge is complete to the editor's satisfaction, if any usable content still remains present that has no seemingly future on the project, just do the merge of the edit history and start a RfD that explains that to the rest of the community, it can even be useful on other projects, like Wikiversity etc...
 * Ultimately quality is on the eye of the beholder. --Panic (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just doing a history merge when there is not actual contribution is just academic dishonesty. The authors of the page deserve credit and it is not fair to the contributors of the actual content to give credit to people who actually no contribution.  If there is material left after the merge that doesn't belong in the new book, but is not replicated there.  In that case I agree with you, it should be kept for the use of future endeavors.  If on the other hand the page there is really no content in the first page that is not contained in the second page it should be deleted. If someone wants to use the material in some other book or project, the more complete/better written module will still be there . Thenub314 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding history pages I strongly agree with you and I've in the past made extensive mentions that the edit histories value is debatable (and was not alone) but I will not get into it again.
 * On the rest we also seem to be in agreement, you can take a look on the recent merges I've done, some-pages were merged some deleted, some moved and some even got RfDs (the first RfD from a merge I got and saw was the Mac OS X IIRC you can check the log). --Panic (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment: We need to determine if there is any content worth merging and then deal with the rest. Duplode linked to a page above where several of the pages have already been analyzed. Complicating the matter is the Physics Course book by the same person.  And then we've got Electronics Course and Electronics Handbook.   -- Adrignola talk contribs 22:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol opinion vote.svg FYI: The Physics Handbook (last contribution edit 14 April 2010) and Physics Course (seems that someone contributed to it at least in 28 April 2010) and Physics Study Guide (tagged as a featured book and last contributed at least in 12 March 2010) all seem to be active and have Wikibookians working on them as such the RfD seems premature, Duplode should engage those communities, propose the merges he sees fit and see if those Wikibookians agree with them, or why not. As for the problem of the author creating many books, I don't see an issue with that, he seems to be only focused on translation and not reformatting the works, that should be fine. A merge can be done later, if he didn't perform the translation there wouldn't be even any content.
 * Regarding Electronics Course and Electronics Handbook I'm in full agreement with the added merge proposal (at first I thought about if the merge shouldn't be done in reverse but after looking at the content I agree with the proposal), if no one objects that should close the issue there. --Panic (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * RfD's often occur while people are still involved in writing the book. That is why it put notices to notify everyone. If the author has something to say about it his input is very welcome.  Unfortunately, experience suggests this author will not partake in the discussion.  But I am very seriously hope I am wrong about that. Thenub314 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please reply only on a location (use the time of the posts if you like). What you have stated doesn't apply since the RfD has no basis on the deletion policy, see my last post below. --Panic (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but replying in several locations is allows me to sort my thoughts out better, and I find it easier to read if related comments are kept together. I am afraid it is a habit I don't intend to break. Thenub314 (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This RfD should not impose a merge on active books, at this time and from what I understand of the discussion I don't see that deleting the content is a good outcome (RfDs are limited on what they can archive and their purpose, that is mainly the deletion of content). --Panic (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems unnatural to propose a merge to a community when the proponents themselves do not believe such a merge would be viable, or worth the effort (I, for one, most definitely do not). If you (not just Panic, but all involved) are concerned about undeserved destruction of content, the ideal resolution of this situation would be asking editors of some of the most developed Physics books (by the way, I singled out Physics Study Guide as an example, just for illustrating the point!), who are likely in a better position to evaluate the contents from both a scientific and editorial point of view, to survey the material and see if there is something worth salvaging. Then if, and only if, any of these editors decided it was worth it to "adopt" the contents, the book would be moved to the "namespace" of the adopting book and then get progressively merged with no time frame set. And of course, ideally the author (or authors?) of this Physics Handbook should take part in the proceedings too. Hardly feasible? Maybe, but surely preferable to having not just the duplication of efforts (WB:FORK) but also a deeply flawed book like this one occupying a very prominent title such as "Physics Handbook" (or worse - I just found out that Physics redirects to the "Physics Course").--Duplode (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You must have misunderstood my position above, I'm not pro or against a merge, just against the deletion as proposed.
 * I fully support any attempt to salvage useful content. I've examined the book's talk pages and there isn't any expression of objection to the merges that have been proposed (I take you are against them, but you have failed to participate your objection there). This is why I don't think this RfD is useful, talk to the communities first, try to bring previous contributors to the table, but there is at present no policy or guideline that would validate the deletion of concurrent works, like I think you are proposing, the steps are simple and non destructive 1) propose merge 2) merge non opposed for 7+ days do merge, if blocked by the book existing editors/good reasons (merge aborted, try again in a few months) 3) merge done, if spare content still lingers after an history merge the admin if the content is significative will bring it to a RfD. (This is how it has been done in most case, and the cases that have been done right in my opinion.)
 * I will gladly discuss the "proposed" WB:FORK policy and how it came about. The idea is simpler, we shouldn't prevent contribution of useful content, book tend to be highly personal enterprises (long and require structure) by not promoting but enabling contributors to get out of the problem of too many cooks in the kitchen, we are fomenting participation and reducing conflict, as I said earlier, merges and deletions can only occur if the content is here to be acted upon, forced participation/collaboration will not work. --Panic (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I find above discussion a bit unfair to Duplode. It should not be necessary to express disagreement with a merger before suggesting deletion.  This is the appropriate forum for discussing deletion.  He brought his concerns to the correct place and I thank him.  In addition it is not the case the the community "in favor or merging" is not represented here.  I placed the merge templates, I am taking part.  Unrelated to my comments above, let me express the opinion that if one finds writing a book a highly personal enterprise, perhaps one should consider a different forum from than a wiki. Thenub314 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfair ? We were replying to each-other for mutual understanding, the arguments can be valid or not. Since you are supporting that this is the right forum, well this forum can serve for any type of discussion (but it should be considered off topic) since the there is a presumption that a RfD is just that a request for deletion. And so I will attempt to prove why it is all off topic...
 * Duplode has put one things on the table, the RfD of the work (to what I already voted my opinion) but he requests the deletion not based on valid (by policy) reasons, but by his disagreement with a merge (this has no bearing here, he should talk to those that have proposed it) and he seem to like the FORK proposal (I have no problem with his support for it but again this shouldn't be the forum to discuss the proposal), most important to me is that he failed in attempting to address those book communities first. I'm extremely defensive of the right to block (in regards to any decision process on Wikibooks) within reason.
 * Since you have placed the merge templates, both of you should come to an understanding seeing that he doesn't share your opinion, but why involve the rest of the community especially with a RfD? This is clearly an instance where a more general forum would apply if and after a private or limited attempt of dialog had failed, and that is not even the case. Just like your last post and this reply, it could all been better done in private.
 * As for the wiki mantra and Wikibooks being only fit for accommodating types is unrealistic, you shouldn't look further than this RfD since all attempts to compromise and enter into dialog (with those with invested interests on the specific subject, on the "inside loop") have not been taken. On the global picture you can look to the best works we have and to the number of stubs and abandoned works. Good works are creations of highly motivated people, they have a stable structures, and they are the result of organized book communities (that in itself protects them from "unwanted" interferences since they require more coordination and investiture to be a participant) or singe handed jobs (those are rare). This is by far most the personal invested oriented goal on any Wikimedia project, it requires not only commitment but the capacity to organize around a specific subjects, knowledge about it and the being able to complete the job, and all that done voluntarily. Ultimately what you are proposing is that some people aren't fit to participate, I wont agree with that, the project has gone to extreme lengths to make all able to contribute (be inclusive), in my view only vandals should be excluded and even then I defend moderation and when possible an attempt of education.
 * To me a Wikibook is like a sand castle. Imagine a kid constructing a sand castle on the beach, participation is welcomed, but not required and there is plenty of sand for all, there is no need to fight over it or how the castle should be built, and when the castle is built it is only sand, it will be used again, what is important is that the sand remains and kids come to build new and improved castles.
 * I hope you and Duplode understand that I'm not attempting to force the issue or my view on you, or that I by engaging in a dialog with you am in any way attacking you. I'm attacking only the argumentation, and I'm known for being wrong sometimes or at least not having the full facts...  --Panic (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor cross-replies to you above (find timestamps "1:56, 6 May 2010" and "12:01, 6 May 2010").  --Panic (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, Panic, there's no need to worry too much about being "unfair" with me - as you said, we are discussing ideas here, and you can be sure I won't take criticism of my arguments as a personal attack. Of course, there is a risk in making "unfair" arguments, namely that unfairness means they rest on issues which may not be pertinent to the discussion at hand, and that may detract from the point one is trying to make. An example would be your claim that the messages in this RfD are "off topic". If someone puts up an RfD, even if supported by weak arguments, discussions about the merits of the request can't possibly be off topic until consensus has been reached (something that clearly hasn't happened, as from all the involved people you are the only one to have expressed a final stance, be it "Keep" or "Delete"). on what to do or the RfD got closed by an admin (as per WB:DP or whatever else happens). Furthermore, even if an RfD like mine is flawed for one reason or another something productive may arise out of it (like a plan of action to recover the involved books) in case the final decision is "Keep". After all, that is pretty much the same principle on which your criticism of this RfD rests (it is better not to kill something flawed if a better thing can grow out of it), except that applied on the RfD itself instead of on a Wikibook.
 * Digression closed, back to the Handbook. Your argument mentions that creating a Wikibook is something that demands extra dedication when compared to doing work in other Wikimedia projects. Curiously enough, that is one of the main reasons why I believe this RfD is valid. The numerous factual and presentational errors that justify my claim about the low quality of the book imply that the author either is not putting enough effort in making this an useful resource or is unable to do so. The flaws in the present version make me believe that this book will not become an useful resource unless it is adopted (as I explained in the previous comment) by another book or is taken over by a dedicated author. And (I'm perfectly aware I will get severely flamed for saying it, but still) I do believe having a "Physics" or "Physics Handbook" resource of such poor quality lying around, hoping for the day it gets rescued by a talented volunteer, just for the sake of inclusiveness hurts the project as a whole.
 * As for the issues of not following due process (as in trying to find an amiable solution before filing an RfD), I admit that could be argued upon as well. However:
 * 1. I immediately placed an RfD notice on the main contributor talk page (admittedly it escaped me at first that the contributor has an under-used account in Wikibooks, so only now I placed the notice there). This way, even if the RfD fails (or if it succeds) said contributor will have (or have had) the chance of becoming aware of the discussions.
 * 2. On the other hand, previous attempts of reaching that contributor failed - for instance, during the RfD of Mathematics Fundamentals.
 * 3. You also mention I should have recognized the merge of proposal of Thenub before coming here. That proposal has very little to do with my RfD, as it proposes merging Physics Handbook and Physics Course, both from the same author and both equally flawed.
 * 4. Finally, one thing we all seem to (almost) agree about is that any non-destructive course of action would start with requesting comments from people involved in the other Physics books. Before posting my message yesterday I went about doing so, but a quick inspection at the most complete books in Category:Physics revealed no obvious targets for asking for help, as most of these projects do not have a currently active community (most recent edits are small typos and such); and since I wanted to post the message before going to bed I left it for later. Still, I intend reaching someone (if this was Wikipedia filing an RfC would help, but here there are just too few contributors) - and would be happy if you or other interested parties (frankly, more interested more interested in salvaging any eventual content than myself) tried the same as well. --Duplode (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you understand that we are merely in dialog, but for what I read you already understood my basic position. The lack of people taking position as you state is an indication that the content is not significant or they don't care about the subject, a long argumentation also put some people off, this is why we should avoid going sidetracked). I'll try to be succinct as the thread is getting huge.
 * I could have used relevance in place on or off topic. RfDs are often closed, removed and changed without reaching a consensus and any Wikibookian can close them, for instance one other issue I oppose on bringing into a RfD are the copyvios, as it can be handled without coming directly to a RfD (the RfD in those cases is a RfKeep). Often than not an RfD does cause more harm than good, so frivolous ones should be avoided. I'm here since 2004 and never saw a RfD having a good outcome to a work at best it prompts some minor edits for others that oppose the deletion, I often put myself to the task (and I count in one hand other that do the same).
 * If put yourself in the receiving end and someone making similar considerations on your work, in these terms, it is extremely demoralizing. You have to consider the intentions and the work other have put into it at this time, a simple query or merge wound have been extremely useful earlier in the game. Physics Study Guide (was created in October 2003), Physics Handbook (in December 2009), Physics Course (also in December 2009), I know you are here recently. I haven't investigated the steps taken I'm commenting only on what transpired here. A merge even if partial would preserves and give some meaning to the efforts already made. On the other hand if the deletion prompts you to significantly contribute to the remaining work we all gain from it.
 * I'll reverse my position to the deletion considering apparent commitment to better existing content.  --Panic (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will try to keep it succinct this time. First of all, I believe that if we are doing academic work here demoralization is not a primary concern. Just as we two are able to distinguish attacks to an argumentation from personal attacks, anyone who writes a book should be aware that his/hers work will be subject to public scrutiny and therefore objective criticism. Furthermore, I strongly recommend you not to change your vote based on my "apparent commitment" to the existing physics books, because: 1. I never implied that during this discussion 2. While I certainly can detect errors in these books I am no specialist in physics and thus lack confidence to make large-scale contributions to the better existing content. 3. Any small-scale contributions I might do there would have very little to do with the books being discussed here, due to the "empty merge" considerations already presented. 4. A substantial part of my argument rests in the fact that it is preferable not to have the "Physics Handbook" and the "Physics Course" here even if no attempt is made to salvage contents from the deleted books, so whether I will commit to existing books is completely irrelevant to the discussion. --Duplode (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I am not sure how I feel about the forking policy, but it is rather beside the point. I agree that the book is poorly written, that there is better coverage in other wikibooks, and that the attempted scoop is too broad.  I did not mean to invoke so much passion by using the phrase unfair.  The read the comment "(I take you are against [the suggestions to merge on the talk page], but you have failed to participate your objection there)" as implication that it was not the correct thing to do to raise an RfD if he felt the book should be deleted.  If he felt the book should be deleted, an RfD is always a safe way to go, there no need to comment on a talk page first.  Since I was under the impression he was new here, I wanted to make sure to express that I thought he acted optimally.


 * Here are a randomish collection of my other thoughts reading this. I never meant to say people were unfit to contribute, but it is easy to feel ownership of work here.  I meant to say, if a person does feel ownership over a book, they give themselves a headache trying to develop the book on a wiki.  It would be better for them to develop it in some other way.


 * Regarding the phrase comment "the requests the deletion not based on valid (by policy) reasons". Good!  There is no criteria for when we should delete under an RfD.  There are specific criteria for speedy deletions.  But the RfD is specifically for the modules that do not meet these criteria.  Any book could be deleted if there is community consensus to do so.  So his arguments do not need to be based solely on policy.


 * The suggestions that something should have been said in the discussion page before raising the RfD. This is very rarely done with any book, when someone feels there should be an RfD they tag it and start the discussion here.  In tagging it they involve the community who are editing the book.  End of story.  No need to discuss the merger. No failure to address the books community.


 * Finally the remarks about bad books hurting the project reflect my own personal recent experience. While actively trying to entice other mathematicians and mathematics students to contribute here, I have been repeatedly been told the people had looked at the project in the past, but none of whom contribute.  One student lamented to me "what a great idea, I just wish they had something... anything."   From the discussion I have had it does seem like we lose editors (at least in my field) because the first 4 or 5 books they look at are such rubbish and they decided the project is a non-starter.  I do believe there is harm in leaving error filled non-sense around.  Thenub314 (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was not attempting to make you conform to a commenting practice but to consider that it can be confusing to others (I was especially informing that as the target of you reply i was confused). I only noticed the top replies after replying to your last. (In the future, regarding this long discussion and at least in replies to me, I would appreciate you indicate that it was a multi part reply in the last comment to the same person on a thread.)
 * Regarding the RfD and a merge in general, probably some clear lines can be established, a RfD supersedes any failed attempt to compromise on a merge (the discussion should be continued on the newly created RfD) but an RfD shouldn't be used to abort an ongoing request for merge, the merge can easily be closed and substituted for a more global discussion.
 * I don't agree with your interpretation of the deletion policy and it provides guidelines to initiate an RfD, the case being that this RfD is about deleting valid but seemingly redundant content (even the proposer didn't commit to how redundant it is and did not make that the primary point of the RfD), in fact it goes against the written guidelines. I've taken a quick look and I can't define it as a stub or meaningful content. Considering past conversation I understand that it was the result of a translation effort that is stale for some time.
 * As for the FORK and OWNERSHIP proposal people should take the proposals with a grain of salt (none were voted upon) and not literally take them as proto-policies to validate actions (the situation is different to a non objected alteration to an approved text). The fork policy as it is is more or less what we do in the project but the ownership is in worst state (I invite you in examining the edit history and the talk pages, and will gladly engage in attempting to improve it), it deals with owning the copyright over the contributed material, not control of the works. There are several misdirections in there like "No Wikibookian may prevent other users from editing or modifying content" most of us do it day in and day out it all depends on context and intention, this subject on control and right to edit is best covered in the BeBold policy and was discussed there.
 * For a solution to the books on mathematics start merging stale books as soon as you can, and propose for deletion duplicating stubs (just to avoid situations like this RfD), you can also provide some order on the subject page see Subject:C++ programming language. Thanks for the categorization work of Adrignola it is now extremely easy to detect encroaching stubs. --Panic (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete based on Thenub's comments. There are superior books that weren't haphazard copy and pastes with poor translation.  I would definitely be more inclined to allowing it to remain were it written from scratch, but in line with my comment far earlier, we should be trying to get books completed so that there are not so many stubs.  Physics Course and Physics Handbook dissipate efforts that might be instead dedicated to Physics Study Guide which has the same scope. -- Adrignola talk contribs 22:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Panic, Duplode, did you come to some agreement? To be honest, I'm unable to ascertain the outcome of the wall-of-text discussion above with respect to this book in particular. -- Adrignola talk contribs 19:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, we had a word with each other after all of this fuss, and either we agreed to disagree or agreed to agree in principle, depending on how you look at it. I didn't help much with this comment, did I? :-) --Duplode (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that some agreement had been reached when Panic had struck through his "Keep" comment. Roughly I thought the idea was that, there are some differences opinion between the two, but deleting this book is acceptable. Thenub314 (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As Duplode said, I have agreed to the deletion in the hope that his proposal is translated in productivity on the remaining work, especially as a way to encourage him to participate in that. Regarding your post I do disagree with two items, I don't think at Wikibooks we can and aim to "complete" books in the sense of conclusion. The aim is to at least bring them to an usable state and build on that ad infinitum. The distinction is important because we should place more value on the process that on the goal. That means that the goal shouldn't be used to justify the means to reach it, since there is no guarantee that it will be reached at all. This because as we are all volunteers, there is no compromise or force that ensures the effort will be made. This also relates to the idea that diffused contributions hinders participation. I strongly disagree with this reasoning, and this was one of the factors that prompted me to be contrary to what was being stated on the proposal (and is also present in your above post), but I already have expressed my thought on that before so I will spare you the repetition. --Panic (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)