Deletion of Huang's law

Comment: Yet another |neologism written about far |too soon. One reference is a not-in-depth |primary source which throws in "Huang's law" for the sake of a clickbait headline (and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Reliability_of_headlines|headlines are not to be trusted), following it up with an admission that nobody actually called the idea "Huang's law" yet. The other two sources are |newsblogs from this past week. Nothing here establishes notability. The best source that further searching could find is another opinion column https://www.extremetech.com/computing/315277-theres-no-such-thing-as-huangs-law?source=opera saying the idea doesn't make sense. Wikipedia is not for Mean Girls|trying to make ''fetch'' happen
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM||WP:TOOSOON||WP:PRIMARY||WP:NEWSBLOG)

Comment: I do not understand the nomination. It is easy to find RS. Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/huangs-law-is-the-new-moores-law-and-explains-why-nvidia-wants-arm-11600488001 here, HotHardware https://hothardware.com/news/huangs-law-could-be-why-nvidia-moved-to-acquire-arm here, Fox 24 News https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/09/huangs-law-is-new-moores-law-and-explains-why-nvidia-wants-an-arm.html here, Yahoo! News|Yahoo News https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/f74288ff-6577-327e-9e31-06b8f650f125/huang%E2%80%99s-law-is-the-new.html here and a naysayer ExtremeTech|Extreme Tech https://www.extremetech.com/computing/315277-theres-no-such-thing-as-huangs-law here. As a gentle reminder  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: The main sources bolstering this are not reliable.  One of which starts out by describing Moore's law as a "prediction" rather than an empirical observation (and later a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy).  This ''per se'' renders the source unreliable.  Another conflates the idea of transistor density (which is what Moore's law is actually about) with processor power (which is definitely isn't, and which is well-known).  There's also a lot of overly credulous and hyped-up treatment of the concept rather than serious analysis of it.  Maybe worst of all, that it's just not well-defined.  {{tq|"Huang's law claims that a synergy between hardware, software and artificial intelligence makes the new 'law' possible."}}  The law claims something that makes the law possible? Huh?  And there's still no clear statement of it.  All this, at the very very least, adds up to a case of .  If this really turns into a better-defined thing that people really refer to on a large scale, then come back to this in 5 or 10 years.  &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)