Incorrect deletion under G8, under the exception of plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets
of two redirects: MathematicsAndStatistics and Mathematics and Statistics. Propose to undelete these two pages. Note the discussion with the RfD closer where the redirects not being deleted if the dab page was deleted at AfD was specified as the action that should be taken, due to the lack of consensus between keep and delete at the RfD. Deleting admin declined to undelete, request at WP:UNDELETE was let to archive, but no actual reason has yet been given as to why these redirects shouldn't be undeleted? J947 † edits23:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, probably start new RfD In May, these redirects were re-targeted to a brand new page created specifically for the retargeting which was then sent to AfD and deleted, and then were G8'd as redirects to a deleted page. The closer noted no consensus for keeping or deleting after the retarget, even though specific mention of G8 was made in the discussion. These were long-standing redirects before the re-target and the re-targeting was done for a brand new page, so I think restoring to where things were in say April and then starting a new discussion makes the most sense, even though I'm fine keeping them deleted. SportingFlyerT·C23:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - who is going to be searching for MathematicsAndStatistics? Anyone who starts typing either Mathematics or Statistics is going to be offered a range of relevant pages. Secondly, as discussed at the recent AfD, Statistics is clearly a separate field of study from Mathematics albeit obviously related. So what would the target be? JMWt (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to relitigate the discussion, but these redirects are special in that they have history from February 2001. I'm not a great fan of the broad range of {{R with old history}}s, but generally any history from at least 2002 or beforehand is kept automatically and within that cohort Feb 2001 is in the top 1% at least, I imagine. J947 † edits08:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the relevance of your reply. Are you telling me we need to keep a redirect because it is old? JMWt (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (K4). Doesn't matter much, agreed. But I'm surprised an extremely straightforward case (follow the consensus of the RfD) has been met with so much resistance. J947 † edits09:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus between keeping and deleting at the RfD. This was too controversial to be G8ed, under the condition Plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets [should not be G8ed]. J947 † edits21:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well because the target has been deleted as non-notable and it is just a redirect. There is no consensus or rational for a redirect anywhere. So what's the point in keeping it? JMWt (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The target was only created as a result of that RfD and had been around only a couple weeks before being deleted. We've deleted a 20-year-old redirect because someone thought creating a page specifically for the redirect was a good idea, and it quickly became apparent it wasn't. I'm not sure I'm in favour of keeping the redirect around, but I don't see any harm in undoing things to the way they were in April, with whatever this was targeted at, and then having another RfD, considering there was no consensus to keep or delete the redirect (in part because the new now deleted page was created half-way through the discussion.)
its bizarre to me that you appear prepared to agree that it is pointless and that there is no sensible target but seem to be swayed by the age of the redirect. JMWt (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No failure to follow deletion process has been identified. Neither MathematicsAndStatistics nor Mathematics and Statistics are plausible search terms. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this was only kept in the RfD because of the existence of the Mathematics and statistics disambiguation page (note: I was one of the people who supported that outcome). Now that disambiguation page has been deleted it doesn't make sense to keep the redirect any more. It is fine to delete a redirect under G8 which has survived an RfD, see the CSD policy. Hut 8.511:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few RfD participants (including me) supported keeping purely because the disambiguation page existed and whether it should exist was beyond the scope of the discussion. That rationale is clearly no longer valid, and I strongly suspect several of the Retarget comments would have supported deletion if the disambiguation page had not existed. I certainly would have. Hut 8.520:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you have an issue not with this procedural request, but the consensus found when the RfD was closed. J947 † edits20:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being purposely obtuse? To the question Are you implying that "defaults to keep" should be interpreted as "reverts to previous target in the event of deletion"?, the closer's answer was yes. How much clearer can it get? J947 † edits10:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore both, as Mathematical statistics is a reasonable target, and as others have stated above, MathematicsAndStatistics has history from the era of WP:CAMEL, so it would be preferable to restore and target them somewhere rather than recreating them. RedPanda2521:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematical statistics would be the least unreasonable target of these redirects which are not reasonable search terms, given that such redirects exists, and as such, maybe it cold be called a "reasonable target", but that doesn't solve the prior problem that the redirects should not exist, because, irrespective of exact target, they are, as said, not plausible search terms. Indeed, some redirects which are not plausible search terms but have other reasons to exist, have reasonable targets. But these redirects do not have a reason to exist. It appears that you allude to a historical reason with respect to MathematicsAndStatistics, so as to preserve an instance of camel style, but that is not something that needs to be preserved in this manner.—Alalch E.13:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
endorse and allow recreation Policy and guidelines were followed. It's not clear to me that the redirect will see any use (certainly not enough to justify all the editor time used here), but per WP:CHEAP I think having a redirect here is reasonable if not needed. Hobit (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore 1) as ineligible for CSD per the above, and 2) per our 'reasonable editor' standard: If a speedy is reasonably contested by multiple editors in good standing, our default expectation is to restore and send to the appropriate XfD process. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IAR-ish endorse. My eyes are glazing over with the word salad of CSD categories, exceptions, etc being invoked above. So I am ignoring it in IAR fashion and merely asking - is this a plausibly useful redirect to have? I agree with people above that it is not. I paused a bit at the rationale (I hope I have this right) that it's an old CamelCase redirect and we shouldn't delete those in case there are external links from 20+ years ago that use it that would break - but I've done a cursory google search for any such links and failed to find any. I also understand and accept Jclemens' and others' 'multiple reasonable editors are objecting so let's discuss rather than speedy' argument, so I wouldn't object to a ```Discuss at RFD``` close, but I'd love for that to be in response to objections that go beyond process. Personally, happy to endorse and just move on. Martinp (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per why would we advocate wasting more time on this? If I'm following this correctly, the RfD ended with no consensus for keeping or deleting these redirects in isolation, but during the RfD a setindex/DAB was created for them to point to and there was consensus to retarget them there. Before the redirect target was made there was the nom, a delete !vote, a weak delete !vote that also supported keeping and setindexifying, and a handful of comments supporting retargeting. After the retarget was made, we had 5 !votes to retarget, 2 to delete, and then a question that suggested support of G14'ing the DAB without commenting on the redirects. Of the retarget !votes, 3 appeared dependent on the existence of the target (and 1 !vote is confirmed as such).
The DAB was then deleted, putting us back to the no consensus for deletion or keeping as redirects to mathematics. But the redirects don't point there anymore, they now point to nothing, so would need to be retargeted again to reach the same no-consensus outcome. My opinion is that the CAMEL redirect especially was a useless redirect at the time it was created and remains useless now, with the added disutility of being in a format no reader is ever going to use, and apparently doesn't even have any external links married to it that would break, so why would we intentionally recreate the same pointless situation when we could instead just wash our hands of it and leave it deleted? JoelleJay (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse seems in line with normal practice, the deletion of the subject of a redirect gets deleted and the redirect is therefore removable as housekeeping - contrary to assertions about being without consensus it seems to me there is long term consensus about such as a valid course of action. I see nothing in policy or practice which says old stuff must be kept or that some obiter from the closer of a different debate is somehow binding. Of course there were other possible outcomes and there is nothing to stop someone recreating if there is something viable to put there. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and move to projectspace. This is, I think, the only solution that keeps around the history of the 7th-oldest page on Wikipedia (which has nostalgic value, if nothing else) without requiring us to keep a useless redirect lingering indefinitely in mainspace. Just restore the page, move it to Wikipedia:MathematicsAndStatistics without leaving a redirect, and add an explanation similar to the one at Wikipedia:UuU. This would satisfy everyone, right? Alternatively, restore and send to RfD, substantially per Jclemens's argument that speedy deletion isn't for cases where reasonable editors can disagree. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I guess, since the original closure(s) we would be endorsing clearly did not contemplate this situation and DRV is effectively analyzing it in the first instance, which it generally shouldn't do. I would probably !vote delete on the merits, and oppose Extraordinary Writ's proposal above, but I really can't see this as a valid speedy deletion. * Pppery *it has begun...21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Above I've agreed that Mathematical statistics is a "reasonable" (the least unreasonable) target, but now I believe that there is a much better, quite valid, target: Formal science. So maybe the best thing would be to have this as a redirect to that. In the mainspace... Seeing how Template:R from CamelCase exists. I like this more than restoring to projectspace.—Alalch E.19:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
