Talk:Hartmut Neven

Neven’s law
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)
 * "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)
 * 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&#39;easter (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)