Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conjugate quantities

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 keep as no consensus.--Ezeu 22:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conjugate quantities

Another useless User:Enormousdude creation, presumable meant to be similar to Mathematically entangled. An article so pointless and unloved (even by its creator) that it was vandalized for three weeks without anyone noticing. Nonsuch 19:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article. Please have another look. Lambiam^Talk 12:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - According to Google, "Conjugate quantities" is really a term, but this article is completely wrong about what the term means. Using the definition in the article, the any number would be a Conjugate quantity under the unary negation operator. In other words, if you take the number 10, negate it and you get -10, negate it again and you get 10 back. But according to Google, the term "conjugate quantities" means (if I am reading technobabble correctly) two related quantities. In other words, in the field of quantum mechanics, time and energy are directly proportional and so they are "conjugate quantites". An article on the correct meaning of "conjugate quantites" might be interesting, but this article is not. BigDT 19:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article has been rewritten by Lambiam so it is now appears to be factually correct instead of patent nonsense. Thus, I am changing from delete to keep. BigDT 12:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per BigDT Nonsuch 00:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Lambiam has converted the article into a reasonable stub, which may, in time, become useful. Let it live! Nonsuch 17:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Keep in present form but expand (you can help). --Lambiam^Talk 10:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the current entry which is patently wrong does not appear to be correct, at least from anything I've ever learned, but no prejudice against recreation of a proper article. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; I'm pretty sure this isn't what "conjugate quantities" means either. Melchoir 16:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Arthur and Stifle. -lethe ^{talk +} 05:07, 13 May 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.