Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics equations

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 of the debate was Delete Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics equations

List cruft Koffieyahoo 05:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree- I don't think this article is listcruft at all. It's not an indiscriminate list of info; it's not infinite; everything on the list is verifiable; and, unlike 99.9% of lists on WP, this one could actually help people. -- Kicking222 05:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are also a few thousand physics equations missing from the list at the moment. It'll never be complete and within the realm of physics the current list is quite arbitrary. -- Koffieyahoo 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little context provided and better dealt with on existing pages already. Jammo (SM247) 05:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list would be a terrible way to present the sum of all physics equations. Equations are meaningless without context and ideas. Anyway, good idea or no, it's not realistic nor useful to put all physics equations from all branches of physics in a single list. On the other hand, comprehensive lists of equations are often used for college physics 101 courses, and it would be nice to have such a list. But first, it has to present itself as being such a list, and nothing more. Second, it goes in wikibooks, not wikipedia. -lethe ^{talk +} 06:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would "College Physics 101" refer to? UCSD, for example, has at least 3 different introductory Physics course sequences for freshmen. Each one uses drastically different equations. --Constantine Evans 05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's true. Different levels of physics use different versions of the same equation. I did not propose a solution to that problem, because it's not my problem, as a Wikipedian. Let them figure it out at Wikibooks. But, since you ask, I will suggest at least three solutions: 1. Give each equation at a general (vector calculus) level, and subsequently mention how it simplifies in certain cases (reducing to no-calc, no trig equations). 2. Give 3 separate lists, for three separate levels of intro physics (this is not as silly as it sounds, we will eventually have a thing called wikiversity, right?). 3. Choose one level, mention at the top which level and prerequisites the list requires, and let students who need a different level sink or swim. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lethe. GassyGuy 08:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lethe pretty much covered it, equations need explained and are better covered in articles. This list is unlikely to ever be complete. Scot ^t 08:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lethe. Inner Earth 08:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Lethe. -- GWO
Delete, perhaps if the page name was more focussed... but this is a too general. However, even if the page was more carefully named, the information would be better placed on the relevant page. - Motor (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the number of physics equations continues to grow: such a general list would be pointless —M e ts501^talk 15:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lethe. --Pak21 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just Delete. Changing my vote per good points made below. Someone wishing to do a good job on this would do just as well to start from scratch. Still, if it were layered and referenced the 'pedia something like the Table of integrals why not here? -MrFizyx 16:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[previous discussion]Keep or Transwiki to wikibooks. The list of equations needed to do high school or introductory college physics DOES NOT grow, it is a relatively short and very static list. Thats the beauty of the subject. This is a useful reference. If you must, move it to or merge it with what is already at wikibooks and provide links where appropriate on wikipedia. It does need a lot more context to be useful to someone new to the subject. -MrFizyx 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my vote, yes, such a list is useful. Every high school or college physics 101 student needs such a list. Why shouldn't Wikipedia be able to provide it? I would simply add that the list here in its current form, is too badly written to be transwikied. Let's just delete it, and when someone wants to do a proper list, then let them do so (and let it be at wikibooks). -lethe ^{talk +} 01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The equations needed for 'high school' would vary massively from country to country. I can't see this list having much of a use. Delete per above. Trebor 17:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats not exactly true. The laws of physics are pretty universal. If one were really going to flush this idea out you would want to have equations with algebra and calculus variations, but other than that.... The current content isn't worth fighting over, but I do see potential in the idea here. Its a huge exageration to suggest that you would need thousands of equations for this to be useful. -MrFizyx 18:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'thousands of equations' would be needed to give any semblence of a somewhat complete list of Physics equations. The list does not claim to be a list of only 'High School Physics Equations'. Even for high school or introductory college physics, what level are we to assume? I have heard that some high school physics courses don't even require basic trigonometry. The introductory college physics course I took used the differential form of Maxwell's equations. There is an immense variation in the amount of math used in introductory physics courses. --Constantine Evans 05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know well the full range of students and "introductory" courses you mention. I still think there is some merit to the idea, but alas, I've changed my vote to delete as the current content is junk anyway and you've made some good points. -MrFizyx 16:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikibooks. Not a good list for wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and lethe. Equations without context do not physics make. Anville 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of physics equations out there, should we include everything? If they want an equation, just goto Physics then search down from there. Frankchn 02:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this list were to have any claim to completeness, it would be far too large and impractical. Also, as aptly illustrated by the current content, the lack of context inherent in a list makes this a terrible idea: nearly all of the items make unacceptable assumptions - static friction, gravity only from the Earth on a small scale, all objects in collision are massive, etc ... Adding a sufficient amount of explanation would be tantamount to including the corresponding article for each equation. --Constantine Evans 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated (kind of), physics equations without context are just wrong. To give an example, E = (1/2)mv^2 is only correct in the context of Newtonian mechanics. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 0SpinBoson (talk • contribs)
Delete. Seems sorta of pointless considering that other articles contain these equations. -- Lueser
Delete My vote's not terribly necessary here, but I'll jump in anyways. We're not a textbook, and equations don't mean anything alone (lethe's three lists for three physics classes demonstrates that well). — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.