Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of physics formulae

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 No consensus. From the discussion here it looks like there is some serious skepticism that this can be made into a viable article, but enough people willing to give it some more time to be worked into an encyclopedic article to stay the delete button for now. The current article is already clearly further developed than the previously deleted article. I suspect this article will be back on AfD in the relatively near future if it doesn't progress soon, but for now it gets to stay. —Doug Bell talk 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of physics formulae

[edit]
List of physics formulae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
The Wikibook High school physics has a page on the topic of: Index of physics equations
The Wikibook A-level Physics has a page on the topic of: Forces, Fields and Energy/Appendix of Formulae

Article is marked in-use, but now it got prodded, deprodded by creator, then reprodded, so here we are in AfD. The two prods were "Unmaintainable. What constitutes a "physics" formula? What are the variables used the formulas below? What's their significance? This is just an indiscriminate list. Wikipedia is not a crib sheet for a physics exam." and "How can this ever contain every physics formulae?". I concur: delete as indiscriminate list with no real unifying topic and no context. DMacks 03:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Previous decision: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics equations ~ trialsanderrors 00:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the first prod-er. This is not a useful article. eaolson 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crib sheet. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I'm still writing it, it'll be awesome trust me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete. Looks like a study sheet. Wikipedia is not PhysicsFAQs. --- RockMFR 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How can you have a "list of formulae" as an encyclopaedia article? How would you define a formula as worthy of inclusion anyway? If a+b=c is a formula, is c-b=a a formula too? --Sumple (Talk) 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Weak keep. In its current state, the list has some problems. In particular, the second formula directly contradicts the third formula. In principle, however, there's no reason this couldn't work. It would take some careful planning as to what would be in and what would be out. This is not listcruft -- there's almost nothing more fundamental than physics. I'll work on the article a bit; let's see what happens. --N Shar 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the second prod-er. Unmaintainable list with no context. enochlau (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmon guys..Yeah, it needs improvement so it's more encyclopedic. However, this article is EXTREMELY useful, and I don't think your reasons are sufficient to delete. Worthiness of inclusion is not the issue, that will be edited over time, and thats what wikipedia is all about. This isn't a study sheet, although it works as one I guess. Why can there be so many lists on this site but not this one? How do you sign your name on this? Im the guy who wrote the thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment Sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ --N Shar 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment Before you all say "delete," please look at the top of the article. If you still don't like it after my changes, then go ahead and delete, but I think there's a niche for this article. I don't pretend to be doing a perfect job improving it, but I have addressed some of the issues. --N Shar 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The top of the article states that "Visualizing multiple formulae on one page may be helpful [...] after one has completed at least a basic course in physics.". In other words, this is coursework revision material, suitable for a physics course textbook. That is standard Wikibooks fare, and Wikibooks already has this. Please consider contributing to the right project if you want to write textbook material for physics courses. Uncle G 10:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until finished. It makes a good navigation page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I still say this list is unmaintainable, listcruft, and unencyclopedic. What constitutes "physics"? You seem to be including only classical mechanics. Does it include Raoult's Law, which is generally considered part of chemistry? What about Ohm's Law? Quantum mechanics? Fluid mechanics? Bragg's Law? String theory? Astrophysics? You've included things like the ideal gas law without stating it only holds reasonably true for noble gases at low temperatures. eaolson 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. That's cause it's not done yet. I'm sure that eventually it will have to be cut down greatly, to include only the most important equations from each area. As for the ideal gas law, it'll be marked as only holding for ideal gasses when I get to it. --N Shar 04:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as stated by N Shar, I think it could be extremely useful, but not in its current form. Links to existing pages should be used instead of reiterating where applicable. Metao 04:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject matter is ill-defined. Physics isn't that simple. --AtD 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... for now. As it is, it's a little jumbled and difficult to read, and therefore not a good quick reference. But formatting isn't a reason to delete; let the physics-lovers work on it and if it can't get better, the someone can renominate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markdsgraham (talk • contribs) 04:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. This is probably more useful on Wikibooks, as part of a physics textbook, or perhaps on Wiktionary, as an appendix. I just can't see this as being an encyclopedia article. enochlau (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. putting something on wikibooks or wikiwhatever will make it difficult to research. It's a nice convenient, (eventually) organized list, wikipedia accepts lists. Nickmanning214 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rubbish. It's just as easy for researchers to read a Wikibooks page as it is to read a Wikipedia page. The act of reading a web page does not vary from project to project. Uncle G 10:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I know we're not supposed to bring other articles into the discussion, but consider List of formulas involving pi. This is another very broad topic, and one might easily say "Math is not that simple." (I'm a mathie.) But I think it's still a reasonable article. Perhaps not as deadly serious in tone as other articles -- more a collection of interesting, related facts -- but still a decent list. One might say: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," but that article is not indiscriminate, and while this one might be now, it just needs time to be pared down. --N Shar 04:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom/ above comments. Trigonometric identities are a very specific topic. You wouldn't make a "list of mathematics formulas" page would you? This list is grossly incomplete, has no context, and is useless for people who want to learn physics. However, with a little work, I do agree that it might make a nice appendix in an introductory mechanics textbook on wikibooks. Danski14 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I can see this being a good quick reference, although it would need to be cleaned up first - both formatting-wise and have a clear description of what does/doesn't belong in the list. mikmt 05:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - perhaps this might be a good reference for kids taking the regents exam (even though it doesn't have electricity & magnetism, waves & sound, optics, or modern physics), but are such laundry lists encyclopedic? I agree that this page would be very hard to maintain/ organize and standardize. Should Newton's second law be in differential form? Is "Momentum is the amount of mass moving" a good definition? These issues can be fixed, but there will be more. Even with a lot of work, trying to achieve the goal of "quick reference", will this page ever be useful? For me, if I want to know a formula, I will search for that specific topic, so I can understand the formula, and not just see it. Danski14 06:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Physics formulae are what make the world go round. A list like this is what makes the student get his homework done. The quibbles expressed about a particular formula argue for editing, not deletion. Edison 07:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment on present heading: that's not an introduction to the subject matter, its a justification for the existence of this page: "Visualizing multiple formulae on one page may be helpful in understanding all relationships between the variables, after one has completed at least a basic course in physics." Perhaps this sentence can be reworded or deleted? --Sumple (Talk) 09:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "good reference for children taking an examination" is standard Wikibooks territory, and Wikibooks already has several such formulae sheets, such as b:High school physics/Index of physics equations and b:A-level Physics/Forces, Fields and Energy/Appendix of Formulae. There's no reason to believe that the arguments in this discussion will be any different to those for Physics equations (AfD discussion), moreover, which was exactly the same idea, and whose content resembles the content of this article so closely that this article is very close to being a speedy deletion candidate. Uncle G 10:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful page, which puts it in a comically small percentile of pages in wikipedia. Colonel Tom 12:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While of course this could use further wikification, and editors may disagree as to which formulas are important enough to feature, this strikes me as a valuable list serving an index function, and the sort of material you'd expect to find in standard reference books like the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. It belongs in the encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a reason that other Wikiprojects exist: Wikipedia does not and should not contain everything, that's not what it was meant for. This is textbook material pure and simple and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Since it is already in the Foundation's book project (Wikibooks) there is no transwiki needed. Slap a few wikibooks templates on the relevant physics articles and you're done. Readers will find the formulae they're looking for. Zunaid©® 15:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As-is, this list is reasonably comprehensive and maintainable. To be encyclopedic it must be restricted to important physics formulae and it may even wise to restrict it to important classical physics formulae (or at least keep anything involving relativity and quantum mechanics to the bare bones.) However, this page can get much bigger without being unweildy, and should.
    On Wikibooks: It seems to me that this material is also amenable to it, bot not in quite the same form. It is interesting to note the this article is already superior to the lists in Wikibooks. --EMS | Talk 16:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's merely a strong argument for encouraging the editors writing here to go and write textbooks in the correct project. Uncle G 17:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have seen lists of equations in print encyclopedias. So it makes some sense to me for this page to exist here. At the least, I find the argument that similar pages exists in Wikibooks to be most inadequate due to those lists being nowhere hear as cmoprehensive as this one already is. IMO, if this page can be referenced from other pages, then it belongs here. --EMS | Talk 19:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those lists are almost certainly not the same as this list. Their contents almost certainly have more in common with one another than just being formulae used somewhere in the field of physics. Furthermore: Your reason for finding the argument inadequate is spurious. Firstly, that someone can link to an article is not exclusive to Wikipedia. We have interwiki links in many articles. Indeed, there are two right at the top of this very page, and two more further down. Secondly, as pointed out above, this list isn't comprehensive, contrary to your assertion. A comprehensive list would be so broad as to be useless. The idea that one can keep it to just "important" formulae is founded entirely upon sand, since the only workable definitions of "important" are either "important to physics topic X", in which case the mathematics actually belong in the encyclopaedia article that deals with that physics topic, or "part of the crib sheet in school curriculum Y", in which case they belong in the relevant textbook for that curriculum on Wikibooks. If you think that the textbooks in Wikibooks can be improved, then improve them, and encourage any other editors who want to write textbook content to do the same. Wikibooks is a wiki. Uncle G 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find the demand that this article contain every physics equation to be both unfair and unrealistic. It seems to me that as this article grows, it can be split itnto sublists as needed, which only the most important entries from the sublist maintained here. IMO, this particular article is off to a very good start, which is why the deletion request is being strongly contested. Given that it seems to be headed in a good direction, I say that we should keep it and see how it develops. --EMS | Talk 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The "demand" is inherent in the list's scope, as given by its title and introduction. You find that scope, when it is pointed out to you, to be "unrealistic". Therefore I suggest that you think about the article again in light of that. As I've already pointed out, any constraints (such as the "importance" criterion that you vaguely mentioned before, but didn't define) to "realistic" lists lead either to content that belongs in an article about a specific physics topic, or in an examination crib sheet. Uncle G 18:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • New opinion - Weak keep if not transwiki. This article has not been improved on in a week. An energetic and ongoing attempt to catalog the important equations of physics is one thing. The current article as the best that can be created at this time is another. It is a good list, and should at least be transwikied if it is not retained in Wikipedia. I will support keeping the article at this time to permit it to be built up more and prosified somewhat. If nothing of the sort happens soon, then I will support its being tranwikied. --EMS | Talk 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Didn't we just go through a discussion about deleting Physics equations? I think the arguments made then are just as applicable now. Anville 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (for now) The article has no references, which in and of itself can be sufficient reason to delete. It also appears at the moment to be still ambiguous as to the scope of the "list" and/or if it will even be a list in the long run. My advice is for the article's author to complete his article in user space, not here. Once he has completed his article to his satisfication on his user space, including references to verify the information, then recreate it as a Wiki article. At that point I'll be happy to reconsider the new, complete and referenced article. Dugwiki 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs referencing and cleanup. Dugwiki said, The article has no references, which in and of itself can be sufficient reason to delete. But our deletion policy page says Can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations) is a problem where deletion may not be needed -- and recommends editors do that footwork first, and failing that, using {{cleanup-verify}}. --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a textbook. These formulas belong in the articles about the individual subfields of physics, not all bundled together into one big crib sheet. Argyriou (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very useful page. Especially if you haven't ever heard of Wikibook. It's just a nice page to have on Wikipedia. I've seen plenty of other lists on Wikipedia, this one being more helpful than any of them.
  • Weak keep Lists are pretty common on Wikipedia; what's wrong with another, especially since it's not finished yet and we can't tell how good it'll be.  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs  00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic, but not well wikified. TonyTheTiger 00:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikibooks and Wikipedia may be separate projects, but they will overlap sometimes. This is one of those times. Raffles mk 01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some Wikimedia project, whether Wikipedia or another. It is useful to have an article (or book or whatever) with a large, useful set of formulas in a consistent notation and with a useful organization. Earlier objections: "Unmaintainable." Why do you say that? What about a list of formulas makes it unmaintainable? There are books with formulas inside their covers; their publishers can and do maintain them, and in fact, little change from edition to edition to edition establishes that nearly no maintaining is needed. "What constitutes a "physics" formula?" The authors are answering that by editing the article, which they could do a lot more efficiently if they didn't have to face two deletion proposals and an Articles for Deletion debate. "What are the variables used the formulas below?" They're explained in the article. "What's their significance?" That's explained in articles to which this list links. "This is just an indiscriminate list." No, it discriminates very carefully: to be an entry in the list, an item must be a physics formula. "Wikipedia is not a crib sheet for a physics exam." Is that policy? Wikipedia is not an article on any topic, so how is this an argument against an article? "How can this ever contain every physics formulae?" Must it? Does or must the article on physics contain every fact about physics? This information belongs in a Wikimedia project. A link to it from Physics, Mechanics, and other major articles will let readers get to it just as easily whether it is on Wikipedia or Wikibooks. The authors are doing good work and I congratulate and encourage them. Fg2 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wikipedia is not a crib sheet for a physics exam." Is that policy? — Wikipedia articles are not textbooks is, yes.

      it discriminates very carefully: to be an entry in the list, an item must be a physics formula. — That argument is clearly based upon the false premise that there are only a few formulae in physics. That is untrue. There is a large number of such formulae, and many of them have nothing in common apart from being "in physics". "In physics" is almost as indiscriminate a criterion as "written down".

      A discriminate criterion would be topic specific. But then the formulae would be (and, indeed, for many topics already are) in the encyclopedia article related to that topic. Uncle G 18:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unmaintainable list of indiscrimate, random formulas. linas 05:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What could be more important? --Michael C. Price talk 05:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let it develop and see what it looks like. Give the editor a chance, good heavens. --Filll 05:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This could potentially contain every equation ever written in a physics book. It is not maintainable in the long term, as endless numbers of equations from every subfield of physics can be added. The arguments about usefulness will no longer be valid if this simply becomes a gigantic, unreadable list of every physics equation that someone found "useful". If desired, the individual sections should be turned into individual articles (like Maxwell's equations). This article should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD is not cleanup crew, nor is it for deleting articles that aren't even finished. Calm down. -Ryanbomber 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics is the cleanup crew, and has a hell of a time trying to straighten out the crud, half-baked ideas, basic misunderstandings and raw untruths contained in the elementary/introductory/pop physics articles on WP. The best way to not have to clean up a mess is to keep one from happening, which is why this artcle should be nuked. linas 00:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As said, calm down. --Michael C. Price talk 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, you're acting like I just shot your dog. It's text on the internet. Consider calming down a bit. -Ryanbomber 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is Wikibooks material. Flyingtoaster1337 05:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And optionally soft redirect to Wikibooks wikibooks:High school physics/Index of physics equations because something like this already went through AfD, so we can gently tell students to look in the correct places for this material in future. Flyingtoaster1337 05:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Several problems here. Foremost, as noted above, this is Wikibooks material, and already exists there (at least in some form). Wikipedia is not the CRC Handbook (we also don't keep trig tables, for example). Second, it lacks limitations that are not going to be easily resolved. There are entire textbooks about the math behind fluid dynamics, for example, not to mention quantum physics or anything more esoteric. What about derived forms? Variants with differing sets of assumptions? This article does not set boundaries, and efforts to ascribe limitations after the fact strike of original research. Similarly, third, we cannot "wait for it to be finished". In a very real sense, Wikipedia articles are never finished ... especially those that approach limitlessness. Finally, I'm not sure exactly what the content of the previously deleted article was, but haven't we had this discussion before? Serpent's Choice 09:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Perhaps you should see Trigonometry#Common_formulae and reconsider what you have to say about trig tables. As for this list: It is already far superior to anything in Wikibooks. Maybe this article should be transwikied. Maybe it should be "prosified" a ways and made into a genuine Wikipedia article. Maybe it should be allowed to be the main file of a tree of such lists (possible in addition to one of the other two possibilities). However, it should not be unceremoniously deleted! This list is an asset, and it should be present somewhere. --EMS | Talk 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The advent of calculators has rendered the trig table a rarity. Our article discusses trigonometric functions and their interrelationships. This on the other hand, is a trig table. I view a long list of formulae without context to be more like the latter than the former. As a possible suggestion, however, a list of formulae by name that provides some context for each and that links to the articles in which they are discussed might be of value as a navigation tool (assuming no such list exists at current). Serpent's Choice 04:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As I mentioned above, trigonometric identities are a very specific topic, but still there is a huge page dealing with them. (List of trigonometric identities) But, you wouldn't make a page called "List of mathematics equations" would you? That is basically what this page is like right now. A better title for this page would be "physics equations in elementary Newtonian mechanics" (basically regents and AP level). The only use for this page is as a crib sheet, and it isn't even very good for that, as it has numerous technical difficulties and does not include Electricity & Magnetism, waves, optics, or any modern physics (which is most of physics). Over all, it has no context, little or no educational value or practical use. When people forget an equation and need to look it up, they will search for that specific topic. When people want to learn about an equation, they need something that relates it to nature; something with context and an explanation of the conceptual ideas involved and how the equation is used, etc. Just having the equation thrown out there leads one to a "plug and chug" mentality which gives little understanding of the underlying physical phenomena. Currently, I see two possible futures for this page: 1. delete it and merge into wikibooks or 2. Somehow reduce this page in it's size and scope (perhaps to elementary Newtonian mechanics?), and then assuming there are people who know physics willing to work on it, they will fight the ensuing edit wars, and hope that is turns out ok and is not a big confusing mess (or conversely, a pitifully incomplete indiscriminate list). Right now I am opting for 1, because I think most people involved in Wikiproject Physics have a lot of other more important things to do then deal with this. (it seems some people involved in wikiproject phyics project have also voted delete). Danski14 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suggestion - Rename this article to List of important classical physics formulae: Your complaint seems to be more agaimst the name than the content. Beyond that, I am amenable to the possibility of transwikiing this article, but I don't think that a good case for that has been made yet. I for one want to see how this article develops before lowering the boom on it. If it integrates itself into this project readily over the next few months, then obviously it will deserve to stay. If it instead stagnates I may prefer to see it transwikied later. BTW - I also think that it would be nice if the folks who think that material belongs in Wikibooks would have as their vote "transwiki" instead of "delete". The later is a call for the total removal of this material without even trying to put it in a better place, and I totally disapprove of that. --EMS | Talk 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Although it needs work, it is a useful list that is very encyclopedic. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Build it and they will come. This should be given time to develop and grow. There is evidence that there is considerable interest in this sort of thing. It has been attempted several times before by different editors. There is clearly some sort of need for this. Let it grow. SilkTork 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is indeed useful but belongs at wikibooks. Formulae should be (and generally are) listed within the articles on specific topics rather than grouped into a massive category like "physics". Eluchil404 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopediae should be reference tools. This entry will prove to be very popular amongst those using the internet to research the subject. Is not Wiki for the benefit of all?Hogan 13:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Is anyone reading the above comments? Anyone who has tried to learn physics knowns that lists of equations are not helpful for anything except crib sheets for tests. We here at wiki should want to increase public understanding of physics, not deprive them of it. Therefore, if we are going to create this page, it's going to take a lot of work. And for reasons above, many had said it would be unmaintainable, unless it is downgraded, and even then I am not sure how it might turn out. Danski14 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna deny that a lot of people would use it to bone up for tests, but there's a lot of these equasions, and I get them mixed up all the time. If I ever needed a random physics equasion in everyday life (Don't ask for an example, PLEASE) then I would love to come here and just look it up. If you're really that concerned, then we can add an explanation to each equasion, although that may just bloat it a bit too much. We'll burn that bridge when we cross it. And besides, Physics books generally have tables of formulae in the back, so why not have one in the Wiki for people without physics books? -Ryanbomber 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If were going to add explanations, that would be a waste of time. Everything is already covered in other articles. (Maxwell's Equations was mentioned before as a good example. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics equations Danski14 00:36, 2 February 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_physics_formulae&oldid=1069644750"