Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Physics in English

Physics in English
This looks to me as very subquality book. I vote for deletion for the following reasons:
 * Delete
 * The book is presented as advanced undergraduate book, while the material is at best (bad) highschool kid notes. I'm an astrophysics graduate student. Most of the entries look like item lists (loosely) related to the subject.
 * All of the material listed are covered in depth in other physics books/wikipedia article.
 * Some of the entries are pure nonsense, some others are common sense facts, others are excessively technical -- especially the ones covering QM topics. It looks like the author read some popular science books, didn't understand them, and nevertheless thought he did and wrote a super-super-short summary.
 * Issues in society and vitamins sections? in a physics book?
 * Many silly and serious mistakes, and a lot of pure gibberish.

I think it's wholly possible to create a formulas-free and yet quality physics book. The book gets unnecessarily technical in sections, and plain wrong most of the time.

--Lipschitz 15:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment This looks mostly like a dictionary. I might suggest a transwiki to Wiktionary, but first, I want to know if the material was copied from somewhere. In particular, Physics in English:Table of Chemicals appears to be a cut-and-paste from somewhere like Wikipedia, I even see "Table of contents [showhide]" preserved in the text! --Kernigh 00:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no "Physics in English:Table of Chemicals" page, not in the deletion log. However, there is a link from Physics in English to Electronics:Table of Chemicals. I might want to put Electronics:Table of Chemicals to votes for deletion. --Kernigh 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it would be very interesting to have a good physics book without mathematical equations. I thought such a thing would be impossible, before I started reading QED (book). Do you think it would be easier to build such a thing from scratch, than to use this book as a scaffolding? --DavidCary 07:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge. We have other physics books. We can merge this material if it makes sense to do so (which i doubt), or we can delete it. The material as it currently stands, is garbage. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Crap.(but hilarious) Perhaps it could be merged into an Uncyclopedia article somewhere.  This module is hilarious, but does not belong in Wikibooks.  My favorite part is the part about quantum physics including the "obvious" particles and the "less obvious" particles.CatastrophicToad 22:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I would now vote to delete, because most of the book is dictionary definitions or stubs of encyclopedia articles, and Wiktionary and Wikipedia probably already have some, making them the transwiki unnecessary. However, there are other pages, like Physics in English:Atmosphere, that we might keep. --Kernigh 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * comment: I wish I could vote on this one, but to be honest I feel I don't have enough knowlege. What delimitates the difference between a well written book vs a book that is poorly written. And how can we tell when the other is planing to use common definition or simply words (often linked to a poor stub or definition) to expand vs leave as is? Should we not be looking into the global overview of the book?

Jguk deleted this book. --Kernigh 23:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)