I like the idea of splitting. I don't know the exact history here, but it shouldn't determine the best set of reasons to use henceforth. The EITHER/OR structure of that reason has long seemed awkward to me: now it appears that it was a way to get round the limit on number of reasons allowed. What is important here, simply but fundamentally, is that reasons given are clear not just to those who vote for one, but also to the posters on the receiving end, often people new to CV or SE in general.
This question appears to be off-topic because it focuses on
programming, debugging, or performing routine operations within a
statistical computing platform. You could try the support links we
could be an example of a crisper, more focused reason to close often used here.
This question appears to be off-topic because it does not relate to
the theory or practice of statistics, machine learning, data analysis,
data mining, or data visualization.
could be an example of a crisper but catch-all reason to close (otherwise put, irrelevant to what we discuss here, while trying to avoid the circularity of saying this is irrelevant because it is irrelevant).
Asking for datasets may not now be very common, but we do see it done. That was a useful reason to close, but sacrificing that reason seems practical. But I suggest also adding nuance to https://stats.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
where we already say
Questions about obtaining particular datasets are off-topic (they are
too specialized). The GIS site welcomes inquiries about obtaining
geographically related datasets.
We could give that a bit of a boost, say
Questions about obtaining particular datasets are off-topic. They
usually are too specialized or raise programming or other computing
issues of downloading and processing files better discussed elsewhere on Stack Exchange. The GIS site welcomes
inquiries about obtaining geographically related datasets.