Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger versus lion

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. However much I appreciate the sentiments to delete, we bow down to the number of references who have discussed this topic. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 04:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger versus lion

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Tiger versus lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'll come right out and say it, this is a silly page on a silly topic. "Tiger vs Lion" is a debate like "Pirate vs Ninja" or "Cats vs Dogs" that is rather subjective. Now, I could maybe see this being an article looking at the scientific relevance of lions and tigers living together (which even as I type it sounds like an OR issue), but as it stands it needs to be nuked from orbit. The sections are (in order)

  • random quotes from people choosing one or the other
  • random examples of "tigers beating lions" or vice versa
  • a semi-valid section about their coexistence (though there's a lot of speculation involved)
  • a physical comparison between the two
  • a "temperament" comparison
  • random examples of the animals in the Arts

There's just way too much OR and it pretty much bombs the NOTCATALOG NOTANY2CATEGORIES guide (as well as NOTCASE from the next section as well). Primefac (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this page, you have supported someone whose main reason for nominating this adequately referenced[1][2][3][4][5] and hence WP:notable article for deletion is either WP:personal opinion or a lack of proper research. This is in contrast to when you declined another user's request to be unblocked, over the issue of personal opinion. Leo1pard (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you know this means dropping OTHERSTUFF (since we're throwing essays around). Primefac (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have your work cut out for you as there's a large tree of such pages – see category:Comparisons. These clearly demonstrate the acceptability of such content. Primefac has yet to produce a single valid policy issue here. Essays don't count and WP:NOTCATALOG is a joke because that's a prohibition of sales catalogs. Perhaps there's some confusion about the nature of big cats? :) Andrew D. (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually referring to point #6 of that section, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. I've amended my link above. Thanks.
Also, if you want to talk about "vague waving", pointing to a huge category is doing just that. I'm sure I could find a half-dozen pages in that cat that should be deleted, and a half-dozen that absolutely make perfect sense to compare. Tony making up examples might not be valid, but neither is your counterargument. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Primefac seems to have missed the word "unless". As noted above, we have lots of articles where categories are brought together. For example, another page I worked on was the list of women aviators. That covers the cross-categorisation of women and aviators and that's fine because the combination is notable, just as lions vs tigers is notable too. Andrew D. (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Andrew D., because the 6th rule in the link that Primefac provided says "Cross-categories ... are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon ..." and there are so many references in the article that deal with the issue of the lion versus the tiger, including the ones that I mentioned below,[1][2][3][4][5] which obviously means that the issue is dealt with heavily even outside Wikipedia, that this topic should be considered culturally significant or WP:notable, that this is not original research or synthesis, and that the main reason for this being nominated for deletion is WP:personal opinion, or a lack of proper research into this article. Leo1pard (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the title will suggests a not too serious article, but actually the references are strong. Any other problem of this article can be solved by editing but the topic is notable and backed by reliable sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not OR, and is adeqautely referenced, take the initial sentence for instance, which is detailed to the extent that I would trim it down for this discussion, especially as it has no less than a dozen references which actually are related to the topic of the lion versus the tiger, and therefore renders the argument of those who say that this is a synthesis as invalid:
"Historically, the comparative merits of the tiger (Panthera tigris) versus the lion (Panthera leo) ... have been a popular topic of discussion by hunters,[1][2] naturalists,[3] artists and poets, and continue to inspire the popular imagination in the present day.[4] ... [5]" Leo1pard (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You said "I haven't time to assess that right now," which suggests that you have not researched this properly, especially the references that have been provided in the article, or even the few ones that I have provided here.[1][2][3][4][5] If you are not going to access the references, then there is no point in calling this article "ridiculously over-referenced and poorly constructed article ... named," or arguing for it to be changed the way that you have suggested, or that "the article creator (whose account is not active on Wikipedia nowadays) really needs to get a sense of perspective and academic realism in the pages they put together," and suggests that you are merely expressing WP:personal opinion, and by using that S-word, you have done something WP:Wrong. Leo1pard (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • grudging Keep - this article is a singular magnet for bad writing, bad research, and - excuse my Klatchian - fanboy wanking, and I wouldn't get stuck in there editing if you paid me. Nevertheless, it is a topic that has been very popular across the ages, and the references are there to prove it. How long this can survive tottering on the border to trivia list/obsessive essay territory is anyone's guess, but nuke-worthy it is not, and I don't think one can make a real case for deletion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d José Ortega y Gasset (2007). Meditations on Hunting. ISBN 978-1-932098-53-2.
  2. ^ a b c d John Hampden Porter (1894). Wild beasts; a study of the characters and habits of the elephant, lion, leopard, panther, jaguar, tiger, puma, wolf, and grizzly bear. pp. 76–256. Retrieved 2014-01-19.
  3. ^ a b c d Ronald Tilson, Philip J. Nyhus (2010), "Tiger morphology", Tigers of the world, Academic Press, ISBN 9780815515708
  4. ^ a b c d William Bridges (22 August 1959). Lion vs. tiger: who'd win?. Retrieved 2016-02-28. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  5. ^ a b c d Thomas, Isabel (2006). Lion vs. Tiger. Raintree. ISBN 978-1-4109-2398-1.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tiger_versus_lion&oldid=1071741363"