Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:QM

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Book:QM

 * – (View MfD)

With 817 articles this book about quantum mechanics is essentially impossible to use and so broad in scope that it's unlikely to be a good fit for anyone. To read this book you would have to either render it using mediawiki2latex which would take many hours, possibly days or buy it from PediaPress which said "Book rendering failed" when trying to just check the price tag. We also have many better books on the same topic at Category:Wikipedia books on quantum mechanics --Trialpears (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename perhaps, but otherwise seems fine. Broad is one way to look at it, near all-encompassing (potentially) is another. If someone wants to spend however much time rendering, so be it. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for context, according to wikibooks:de:Benutzer:Dirk_Hünniger/wb2pdf, the currently largest book known to be created with mediawiki2latex is 8991 pages long and 306 articles or less than two fifths the article count in this book. With regards to time it took 6 hours and 15 minutes for a 100 article trial to complete which if you extrapolate (which probably is the best we can do here) would give this book a rendering time of over two whole days non-stop. This book has never been rendered or read and if you want a near all-encompassing list of quantum mechanics topic we have the better structured Category:Quantum mechanics. --Trialpears (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - We don't need books by editors who haven't edited in five years when the book functionality doesn't work, about subjects that cannot be understood anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Unreadlable books are unnecessary and confusing for the readers. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2020 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.