Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayesian

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 no consensus pending the resolution of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Disambiguation of adjectives. ansh 666 20:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bayesian

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

We do not disambiguate phrases with the same adjective Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entries on the dab page do indeed look like partial title matches of the form adjective + noun, but these set phrases don't exhaust the combinatorial possibilities: if a reader comes across a generic phrase like "a Bayesian approach" then they're most likely to search for the keyword "Bayesian" and then a dab page arguably serves them better than the search results (if it's deleted) or one given article (if it's redirected). Now that we're here, we might as well figure out what to do with all the redirects: Bayesian model redirects to Bayesian network, Bayesian models and Bayesian approach both go to Bayesian statistics, while Bayesian method and Bayesian analysis are pointing to Bayesian inference. – Uanfala (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Your logic applies to each and every adjective. Still, this is not WP:DPAGE. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This logic applies only to adjectives that are derived from proper names and that have come to be used to denote disparate concepts. See for example Newtonian, Pythagorean, Copernican, etc. – Uanfala (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is important to have a link target for "Bayesian", as it is a likely source of ambiguous wikilinks. If this is supposed to be a partial disambiguation, as the first comment claims, what is the full disambiguation that it should be merged into? And I think the nomination statement "we do not disambiguate adjectives" is blatantly false. When we do disambiguate adjectives, we want the disambiguation page to list the likely meanings of the adjective, as this one does. However, I would have no strong objections if some purist for keeping disambiguation pages exactly in some specific format that this one doesn't quite fit were to turn this into a {{sia}} instead of a {{dab}}, by changing the little template at the bottom and otherwise leaving it unchanged. After all, {{sia}} seems to be what we do to avoid struggles like this one between editors who think disambiguators should serve a useful purpose and those who think disambiguators should list only exact matches to a complete title. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Eppstein:. I have realized that already. At the same time I realized this is not so simple as it seems. Therefore I started Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_of_adjectives. Please have a say there. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PROCEDURAL KEEP. I found out this is a generic issue, so I started Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_of_adjectives. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of things named after Thomas Bayes or soft redirect to Wiktionary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong opinions about what to do in general about pages whose titles are adjectival forms of mathematicians' names. (That's just an acronym too far for me.) But in this specific case, we do have the List of things named after Thomas Bayes. I'd be fine with redirecting Bayesian to List of things named after Thomas Bayes, since they serve the same function, and the latter is the more inclusive of the two. Alternatively, we could keep Bayesian, and merge List of things named after Thomas Bayes into it. This would make the situation parallel with Newtonian, Pythagorean, Copernican, Lagrangian, etc. I feel like there is enough variation in practice about whether people use the noun or the adjective form that including "Bayes" in the Bayesian page would be fine. (E.g., both "naive Bayes" and "naive Bayesian" are widely attested in the literature.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @XOR'easter: Please help resolving this as a generic guiledine issue; see Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_of_adjectives. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an appropriate and very helpful disambig. page, and it is completely consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. Such pages are "are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term". My very best wishes (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's obviously not completely consistent with WP:MOSDAB, in particular WP:PTM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep e.g., per arguments of David Eppstein. Note that the first two items, Bayesian probability and Bayesian inference, are two broad general (and distinct) ways that the term Bayesian may be used. For those two items the page is functioning very much as a standard disambiguation page, and it would be senseless to bury them in a long list of "things named after Bayes." The items in the longer list are more specific, more like applications or developments of one or other of these two senses of Bayesian. Those could arguably be relegated to a separate list page, but it is far more coherent and helpful to keep them here on this page. —Gpc62 (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambig page, which is natural for this term. No need for a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of things named after Thomas Bayes as these two serve the same purpose; no point having both. Tayste (edits) 00:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of things named after Thomas Bayes, since the two are duplicating the same functionality and the list is more complete and more informative. Reyk _YO! 14:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of things named after Thomas Bayes, and do the same with Newton, Pythagoras, etc. They mostly violate WP:PTM. Granted, Bayesian has two legitimate entries, but there's not much point in having two articles that do the same thing. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of things named after Thomas Bayes. I've checked both articles, and Bayesian duplicates everything in 'List of things..' though the latter contains additional article names not in 'Bayesian'. No justifiction in two identical articles, but the Redirect itself will serve a useful purpose. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the second relist. The first relist landed pretty solidly on redirect, which has the benefit of not running counter to the WP:PTM consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus for redirecting, then this should actually be a merge: the dab page singles out the two topics most likely to be the intended referent of "Bayesian"; at the proposed target these are currently buried within the long list. – Uanfala (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, both procedurally and per David Eppstein's argument. Since the nominator !voted PROCEDURAL KEEP, I think the nomination is withdrawn and thus should be speedy kept. As to JHJ's comment: while the first relist viewed in isolation favoured redirect, the discussion until the second relist viewed in its entirety was balanced between keep and redirect. And, as I argued before at the discussion at Disambiguation of adjectives started by nominator, "one cannot categorically state that WP:PTM 'formally applies to some dab-like page with an adjectival title", but that instead "[i]n all cases, application of editorial judgment is required". My editorial judgment in this case is that keeping the page is less confusing and more helpful to the reader than redirecting it to any of the proposed targets. --Lambiam 19:07, 27 January 2018 (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.