This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles
The current state is the most stupid solution. There is a redirect but people following the redirect can't find anything about it on the target page. @Srleffler: If you think the redirect shouldn't exist then nominate it for deletion please. Concerning this article: We have a reliable source using that law, that should be sufficient to mention it in this article (which has much weaker requirements than keeping the redirect). It is a few words in brackets, nothing dramatic that would need overly large notability. --mfb (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Neven's Law" is not yet an encylopedic concept. The term was introduced to the public by Neven a few weeks ago. From the cited source, it appears to be based on data that goes back just seven months. It is way premature to claim discovery of a new "law". Maybe when this concept is a year old, it will be worth mentioning if the data still continues to support the claim.
Redirecting to an article on Neven that doesn't give information about the claimed "law" is better than not having the redirect at all. Deleting the redirect may still be the preferred option, though. --Srleffler (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even though strictly speaking wiki-notability is about what articles should exist, not what should go into an article, there's still the question of giving due weight. And I am always uneasy about the possibility of Wikipedia rewarding corporate PR. XOR'easter (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then nominate the redirect for deletion. Seriously. If the term is relevant enough to have its own redirect then it must be relevant enough to get 4 words in brackets here. If you think it is not then use the usual Wikipedia processes to delete the redirect. I don't mind either way (no redirect and no mention, or redirect and mention), but the current situation is the worst case. We pretend something exists (we have a redirect) but then do so as if that concept wouldn't exist at all at the page where the reader tries to find out what it is. That's fooling readers. --mfb (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
