Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dowling-Neven law

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dowling-Neven law

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A user with a declared COI on

original research aiming to show that Dowling came up with the "law" first. No secondary source is provided to support that statement, nor the use of the term "Dowling-Neven law". Ariadacapo (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 11:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I find exactly one external use of "Dowling-Neven law", and that's a blog article by Dowling (who also wrote this article). --mfb (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not yet an established term.
talk) 15:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Move or Redirect. "
Neven's law" appears to be the accepted name, so move it to there or redirect to Hartmut Neven. This will let people who come across blog posts find out what it is.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
"Neven's law" isn't really a thing, either; it's one guy's bit of sales talk, propagated by the fluffiest of pop-science "journalism", and having no real detectable presence in the quantum information science community.
talk) 17:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:NEO. Its a term that was coined earlier this year, about a theory that predicts an event that might happen this year, based on very limited data. Too new, and too poorly sourced.--Srleffler (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I've restored
Neven's law. The merits of that should be discussed there, rather than here to keep it simple. Widefox; talk 08:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Update - fixed uppercase. Widefox; talk 10:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. insufficient sources and COI editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete couldn't find a secondary source, but there are for Neven's Llaw. Widefox; talk 08:24, 25 October 2019 (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.