Mathematics and statistics : Neither the article Mathematics nor the article Statistics is about the topic of "Mathematics and statistics".  Rather, they are respectively about mathematics and about statistics.  The former does at least briefly discuss statistics, so a case could be made for redirecting there, but the more sensible answer is to delete , as this is not a plausible term for our readers to search; if anything it will just confuse people seeing it as a search suggestion.  -- Tamzin [ cetacean needed ] (she|they|xe) 22:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  -- Tamzin [ cetacean needed ] (she|they|xe) 22:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions .  Duckmather ( talk ) 02:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not a proper disambiguation page; title cannot be redirected because it fails WP:XY .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 03:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I agree with the above.  -- Bduke ( talk ) 05:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not a proper disambiguation page.  Athel cb ( talk ) 08:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - concur with nom and above editors.  Onel 5969 TT me 10:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete .  Created prematurely.  Its only links are see alsos and partial title matches which are explicitly excluded by WP:PARTIAL , so it effectively disambiguates " zero extant Wikipedia pages " per CSD G14 .  – Scyrme ( talk ) 17:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I created this page after a discussion on the above mentioned RfD.  The issue was that the listed redirects were receiving a modest, but significant quantity of hits.  With input from the other editors, I attempted to create a target that would be most useful for readers searching for the term.  In its absence, searchers will be told the page does not exist and be invited to create one.  I'd love a plain English explanation as to how deleting this harmless redirect will improve outcomes for readers searching for the term, or how its existence harms any other users. -- agr ( talk ) 18:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ agr : Which is the redirect you are referring to in "harmless redirect"?  If it is Mathematics and Statistics (uppercase S), then that is a separate discussion for RfD.  If it is Mathematics and statistics (the page under discussion), then that is a disambiguation page, and not a redirect.  Are you suggesting to keep the disambiguation page although it doesn't follow the disambiguation guideline?  Or are you suggesting to convert the page to a redirect (similar to the uppercase one)?  Jay 💬 08:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jay : I’m suggesting keeping Mathematics and statistics, the article under discussion here.  Sorry for my imprecise wording.  It fits the broad purpose of redirects: “ …so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek.” (from In a nutshell) We know readers are searching for the term.  Not a lot but roughly every other day.  The article as it stands is indeed harmless.  No controversy, coi, pov.  etc.  It’s the best landing point for someone searching for the term.  I don’t see how deletion or redirecting to Mathematics is a better outcome.  If you go to Mathematics you’ll find a small section on Statistics with a main tag directing you to our Statistics and Probability theory articles.  The present article is a lot more direct.  Note that if this article stands, the two redirects at RfD become superfluous. — agr ( talk ) 18:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ agr : The nutshell you quoted is from WP:Disambiguation .  A disambiguation page is not a redirect page.  I'm not sure if you have followed the deletion rationale of this AfD nomination which is This is a disambiguation page that does not disambiguate anything .  Jay 💬 19:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jay : I apologize again.  I meant to say “ It fits the broad purpose of disambiguation pages”, per the nutshell quote.   The search topic is “Mathematics and statistics” which can refer to “more than one Wikipedia topic.”  We know people are searching on the term.  How does it harm Wikipedia to have a disambiguation page that helps them find where to go? — agr ( talk ) 23:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This AfD is not about the usefulness of the page, but validity of a page tagged as a disambiguation, and in a form which had no entries but a lede saying X and Y has articles on X and Y .  Jay 💬 08:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] … @ Jay : Usefulness should be considered per WP:IAR, if nothing else.  Do you have a better way to format this page? — agr ( talk ) 20:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] IAR has already been touched upon in the below discussions.  I do not have a better way to format the page.  The question would rather be should Wikipedia have such pages that are neither setindexes or disambiguations, but of the form of one liners X and Y has articles on X and Y ?  In any case, this is not my discussion with you, but I started by replying to your vote because your initial statement was not clear and I wanted to straighten it out, and from what I understand you incorrectly used "redirect" instead "disambiguation page".  Jay 💬 04:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Mathematics (or Keep) - I don't see how deletion would be the best outcome here; it should be maintained as a DAB or redirect, per the linked discussion.   I also agree with the linked discussion that WP:XY isn't incredibly relevant here, as statistics is discussed and linked in the lede of the mathematics article.  For that reason, I favor a redirect.  No opposition to maintaining as a dab page if that's the consensus outcome.  Suriname0 ( talk ) 17:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:XY is relevant because there are multiple articles which are relevant.  Mathematics discussing both doesn't resolve this problem because the same is true of statistics (which discusses the relationship of statistics to mathematics, particularly in the "Introduction" section) or mathematical statistics (discusses mathematical techniques used in statistics throughout).  Maintaining the disambiguation page isn't viable because it's not actually a disambiguation page, it's just a list of related links.  It does not follow the guidelines for what a disambiguation page is and does.  – Scyrme ( talk ) 11:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be clear, I agree that there are multiple articles which are relevant.  WP:XY concerns redirects that could "equally point to multiple targets".  I disagree that the options here are equal: I think mathematics is the more appropriate redirect target, and I think this example doesn't suffer from the same difficulties as the redlinked examples at WP:XY .  Suriname0 ( talk ) 16:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They seem equally likely to me. I don't see a strong reason why Mathematics and statistics should redirect to Mathematics over these other articles based on the content about stats in that article.  If the argument is that WP:XY is mitigated by one being a subtopic of the other, I don't agree; as noted in Statistics § Introduction , stats is not always viewed as a branch of mathematics, instead being viewed as a discipline in its own right.  The phrase "mathematics and statistics" doesn't even necessarily refer to the intersection of the two.  Many universities have a department of "mathematics and statistics", as noted in the RfD; these department titles indicate that the department is responsible for both disciplines, not that the departments deals only with the intersection.  In this sense, it's clearly "X and Y".  – Scyrme ( talk ) 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : this really doesn't seem to me like a notable intersection.  I am not a doctor of numbers or whatever, but I am pretty sure statistics is mathematics, so even if we disregard coverage of the topic, it does not seem to a priori be a logical or consistent concept.  jp × g 00:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to where?  This is a case of WP:XY .  Statistics is not mathematics, since the latter is much broader.  There are also differing views on the relationship between stats and maths.  Stats is often understood as a subfield or branch of mathematics, but others view it as its own discipline.  This is discussed at Statistics § Introduction .  – Scyrme ( talk ) 12:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer : the redirects to this page should be kept (except for Mathematics and statistics (disambiguation) ) and renommed at RfD per User talk:ClydeFranklin/Archive 4#RfD close .  J947 † edits 21:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Mathematics (or just keep per WP:IAR as helpful) - I don't agree with there being an WP:XY issue here.  I think this is a very plausible search term.  Often University courses are named things like "Mathematics and Statistics", and the article does discuss statistics.  Depending on your interpretation/definitions, I do recognise that statistics isn't technically a subbranch of mathematics, but many do consider it to be one, and it IS discussed at Mathematics .  A7V2 ( talk ) 23:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not all plausible search queries should be redirected; in some cases, such as this one, the search engine is a better solution.  The search engine brings up all the most relevant articles on the first page, including Mathematics , Statistics , and Mathematical Statistics , and does so without the need for a pseudo-disambiguation page.  In-fact Mathematical Statistics and Mathematics are the first 2 results on the page after the redirect.  WP:IAR applies when the function of Wikipedia is inhibited; it does not apply to this when the search engine would evidently do an adequate job here.  Mathematics discussing both isn't sufficient to negate WP:XY , because other targets also discuss both topics with at least as much depth and equal relevance.  The material about stats (which is bundled together with less relevant material about decision theory ) at Mathematics is not so substantial as to make it obviously a better choice over other targets.  – Scyrme ( talk ) 00:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mathematical statistics does not discuss both topics, it is a separate topic.  What other article discusses both with as much depth (or perhaps more , as your wording suggests)?  Perhaps they could be added to this pseudoDAB if it is kept....  Since you keep repeating the contrary, I will repeat it again, there is no XY issue here.  Your point about search results is a good one however, I wonder why you are only bringing it up now as no-one else had so far?  It is the only argument I've seen that sways my opinion at all.  But I think on the whole I still disagree that deletion is an improvement here.  A7V2 ( talk ) 23:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (For clarity) I think that this is a likely search term, and that someone searching it is more than likely looking for an overview article of "Mathematics and Statistics".  From search results alone it will not be clear that Mathematics is such an article, so better to take them there directly.  A7V2 ( talk ) 23:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The search engine didn't seem like it needed mentioning until you suggested (by bringing up WP:IAR ) that the functioning of Wikipedia was somehow worsened by deletion.  No-one disagrees that's " it IS discussed ".  I repeated the point because I want you to elaborate on why you think it's uniquely true of Mathematics despite what I've argued.  Mathematical statistics discusses the use of mathematical analysis (as opposed to data collection) in statistics throughout, and ends with a brief discussion of the intersection/relationship between the fields at Mathematical statistics § Statistics, mathematics, and mathematical statistics .  I don't see how that doesn't count as discussing both, especially when the relevant content is so similar to that of Mathematics § Statistics and other decision sciences .  Statistics § Introduction likewise discusses the intersection/relationship in that article, as well as the development of statistics in relation to mathematics at Statistics § History .  That looks to me to be discussing both, albiet from a different angle (but even that in itself is valuable).  Depending on what the reader wants, it could be better, worse, or the same as the other two.  If they want a brief discussion about how stats intersects with different branches of mathematics, then Mathematics is better.  If they want an overview of the application of mathematics to statistics then Mathematical statistics is better.  If they want to understand the relationship of statistics to mathematics as a whole, then Statistics is better.  Both other articles also include overviews.  I'm not seeing what's unique about Mathematics that makes it an obviously better choice.  In-fact, I could see some readers being surprised by it, especially if they're expecting adding "and statistics" to change the target (rather than effectively doing nothing).  – Scyrme ( talk ) 02:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 11:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well this is going to mess up my AfD stats, but I'd say Keep as per the background criteria to the original redirect from MathematicsAndStatistics.  The two terms crop up together so often that they've become linked like Salt and Vinegar.  They are not the same thing, but they're sufficiently related that at least some readers won't know quite which they want.  As a dab page it also contains more than two entries, because the "See also" section deals with the intersection of maths and statistics by pointing to Mathematical statistics , while it also includes useful links to overview pages on the histories of mathematics and of statistics.  That makes the whole thing a useful navigational aid.  I can't see what benefit would come from deleting it, or any policy reason why it shouldn't exist, and I can see some mild benefit to its existence.  Elemimele ( talk ) 12:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The point of a disambiguation page is to list articles which do or could share an identical title.  For example, there are number of films, albums, and publications which share the name "Liberty", and these are listed at Liberty (disambiguation) .  In this case, they title they should share is " Mathematics and statistics ", except that's not true of any of the articles listed.  None of them are synonymous with "Mathematics and statistics", and none of them would be referred to by that title.  The titles they have are either "Mathematics" or "Statistics"; they partial title matches which do not belong on a disambiguation page (see WP:PARTIAL ).  The see alsos don't count because they are only related articles that do not share share that title but which cover relevant material.  Listing partial matches and similar articles is simply not what a disambiguation page is for.  It's what search results are for.  – Scyrme ( talk ) 16:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete One could take many pairs of words that are used together and make a page that says that Wikipedia has articles about each one.  What's the point?  Unless the conjunction of the two is actually treated as a conjoined whole about which there are things to say (e.g., bangers and mash ), it's just a juxtaposition.  Is the joining of mathematics and statistics into the same university department or degree program a phenomenon about which independent, reliable sources have written?  I suppose in principle it could be an encyclopedic topic, like many oddities of academic culture, but I'm not seeing evidence that it is.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some history from Swedish academia that might interest you.  But generally, I don't think anyone here is endorsing a separate article on the historical relationship of mathematics and statistics.  Suriname0 ( talk ) 15:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I don't see the need for it, statistics IS mathematics.  Do we need a similar page for Oranges AND Lemons?  It just seems like an odd disambiguation(?) page.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It isn't.  It is a subset and subdiscipline of mathematics but has become it's own thing in a significant way over more than a century.  JMWt ( talk ) 05:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Subset of the larger set, it's dealing with numbers and numerical data.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My relative is a professor of statistics at a prestigious university.  She is not, and has never been, a mathematician.  I illustrate this because you don't appear to realise quite how separate the two disciplines have become.  JMWt ( talk ) 14:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - essentially the only time anyone refers to Mathematics and statistics in this way is when looking at undergraduate courses at university.  I don't believe anyone is going to be searching for the term on WP - any more than they would search for Mathematics and Physics or even Mathematics and Modern Art .  In this specific case, the disamb page could include everything and nothing.  Everything that touches on either of mathematics and statistics - which is a lot of pages - or nothing as we don't have a page specifically talking about Mathematics-and-Statistics.  At very least we should surely expect there to be at least 2 pages addressing the topic before we have a disamb page about it.  We don't because it isn't a notable phrase.  JMWt ( talk ) 06:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , this topic is not ambiguous.  Wikipedia does not have multiple articles with the name "Mathematics and statistics".  -- T avix ( talk ) 18:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not a plausible term for our readers to search Bruxton ( talk ) 02:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as it doesn't actually disambiguate something (only has Mathematics and Statistics, basically title of the page).  2NumForIce ( speak | edits ) 04:02, 4 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete