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. Tone 07:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Tiger versus lion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-encyclopaedic topic, non-encyclopaedic content – this is a more or less perfect example of what Wikipedia should not be. This nomination follows recent discussion of the page here. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Feels like a very large stretch to call this a notable topic. The bulk of the article appears to be synthesizing the comparison by using sources that cover only tigers or only lions, and then trying to put those sources on the same pedestal, which is pretty much the definition of synth. If there is a notable topic, TNT and start over with sources that specific compare and contrast the two animals. -- Masem ( t) 17:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: utterly unencyclopaedic. - Tom |  Thomas.W ^talk 17:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep The nomination is based on the shallow argument to avoid of WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. It utterly fails to address the previous nomination which took place just last year and was a clear Keep. This is therefore a disruptive nomination per WP:DELAFD which explains that it's "disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The topic has a high readership and has persisted for many years. That's because the topic is very notable and so there are numerous sources. The topic passes WP:GNG and any difficulties are just an ordinary matter of editing and dispute resolution per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment I agree with you about what you said, Andrew Davidson, particularly that it passes WP:GNG, but the way I see it now, I don't need it to be in Wiki now, because the information that's in this article now exists outside Wiki, so the deletion of this article within Wiki won't necessarily delete the information that's in the article, because like I said to another user, there's more to the Internet than what Wiki can have. Leo1pard ( talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC); edited 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

From DELAFD: "It can be disruptive" to renominate articles for deletion. Not "is" disruptive, the difference between a good-faith nomination and a bad-faith nomination. Please stay clear of making accusations of disruption - subjects do repeatedly get nominated for deletion. Acroterion (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

WP:BEFORE lists the steps which nominator should take before nominating. They include "Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.". It doesn't appear that this was done as the nominator only mentions the recent ANI discussion. Likewise, there's no coherent policy-based argument for deletion; just a vague WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. It is obviously disruptive for repeat nominations to be made in such a hasty way as it wastes our time in repetition of the same issues and arguments. Fresh nominations require fresh reasoning or evidence. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Then stick to that point, and leave "disruptive" out of it. Acroterion (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:IMPERFECT and per the SIGCOV WP:RSs. The nominator's rationale seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, however we keep articles that meet out GNG. Lightburst ( talk) 18:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep – meets WP:GNG, the WP:THREE are Smithsonian (magazine) [1], Nature (journal) [2] and Live Science [3]. Books on the topic have been published by educational publishers Capstone [4] and Scholastic [5], as well as others [6]. It's covered in the popular media like HuffPost [7]. Here's the The Spokesman-Review 1959 [8]. It's a notable topic, as notable as Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 or Comparison of the healthcare systems in Canada and the United States. – Leviv ich 18:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  Three children's books, something from 1875, and two short pop pieces, and ... I'm not sure. I think there may be a real topic in here struggling to get out, but seriously, what will be the scientific sources? E Eng 20:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  What does science have to do with this? This is a pop culture article. But seriously, the point is that people have been comparing lions and tigers for a very long time. The full title of the article would probably be something like Comparison of lions and tigers or Comparisons of lions and tigers in human culture. – Leviv ich 20:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  OK, so now it's coming into focus. We still need modern sources other than children's books. If we were to TNT the article, what would be the starting sources for a new stub? E Eng 21:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  For a stub I'd start with the Smithsonian (magazine) article [9]. This article from the Science Reporter might work as a second [10]. Live Science [11] is another possibility–perhaps not the most reliable source for science, but then this isn't exactly controversial medical, scientific, or BLP subject matter (the article's talk page debates notwithstanding). There are also sources that can be used to fill out various sections in the article. For example, biology. It's true the Nature (journal) article comparing lions and tigers that I linked to earlier [12] is from 1875, but they also published one about a genetic comparison in 2013 [13], and the article could discuss comparisons of lion and tiger vocal chords [14], population distribution [15], respiratory functions [16], digestion [17] [18], and everyone's favorite: urine [19] (which is from the Polish Journal of Ecology, so some of my wikifriends aren't allowed to discuss it). Other sections could be about lion and tigers in eastern and western cultures [20] [21] [22]; as a political metaphor, e.g. Britain/India [23] [24] [25], Sri Lanka [26] [27] [28], East/West [29] [30]; lion and tiger fighting in history [31] [32] [33]; in art, e.g. 2nd c. BC mosaic mentioned here [34], 18th century artist James Ward (artist) [35], 19th century artist Eugene Delacroix [36] [37] [38], and in literature [39]. And of course that's without getting into the indisputably-reliable sources such as [40] and [41]. BTW, the answer to "tiger vs lion" is tiger [42]. – Leviv ich 23:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  Seriously, are you prepared to provide a slightly-more-than-stub post-TNT replacement, under a coherent title? Because under the current title trouble will never end. E Eng 02:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  Seriously, I am so prepared, I created Lion Versus. More on the title below. Are you agreeing with Smithsonian, Science Reporter, and Live Science as sources for said slightly-more-than-stub? – Leviv ich 03:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  What about lion verses? E Eng 04:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• I'm going to reserve judgment until the keepers have a chance to tell me what the eventual title of this thing should be -- a title that will actually tell us what the article is supposed to be about. Tiger_versus_lion is essentially meaningless. After a short section on their comparative physiology and so on, this article is mostly about legendary and accidental fights between these animals. E Eng 20:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  EEng I think 'Tiger versus Lion' is a title to keep, because it obviously tells us its essentially comparing a lion and a tiger, and it is a simple iconic name everybody understands and knows. Tijkil ( talk) 01:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - my assessment has not changed since the last go-round. If something is covered to this extent through the ages, it passes WP:GNG. Contrary to what is stated above in some places, the bulk of the article (sections "Coexistence", "Observed fights", "Opinions", "Art") has little synthesis; these sources/people/artworks are commenting directly on the topic. We don't need academic papers to supply that material - children's books, something from 1875, and two short pop pieces are just fine. (In fact, the main WP:SYNTH offender is the "scientific" section ( Physical and behavioral comparison) and IMO that would be a candidate for removal.)

I note that thankfully it's not been brought up in this nomination, but as per the previous ANI discussion, I suspect that several people are still being motivated by the lamentable attractiveness of this article for the... less competent editor demographic. Sorry, that sucks, but it's not the topic's fault that it is a magnet for fanboy wankery. We have tools to deal with that. Put in place some "Discretionary sanctions: Cat fights", if necessary... -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

DIscretionary sanctions aren't applicable to this one, not in the formal sense, and I'm not sure that anybody wants to take on the role of resident killjoy - apart from the problem with using administrative tools to effectively dictate content. I've done some blocking of obviously problematic editors, but there are limits. When I brought it up an ANI, it was primarily user conduct and OR that I was concerned with. I wasn't convinced that deletion was the answer, but some form of TNT (which can be a valid outcome of a deletion discussion if not made into a regular means of forcing change) may be useful. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I went ahead and removed the readdition to at least cut down on the bloat while this AfD is going on. I stayed out of this topic because of the situation you're describing awhile ago, but it seems like it's been getting worse and attracting more of the same with the WP:COATRACK issues. Maybe WP:TNT is the only way to stop the disruption behavior or content-wise short of ArbCom/DS. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 16:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Based on coverage mentioned, this clearly meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 21:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Over 100 reliable sources listed on the article proves that the subject easily meets WP:GNG. I find this article and subject more sensible and familiar than a number of articles listed on main page right now. D4iNa4 ( talk) 02:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Rename and cut down Part of the problem is that the name attracts misguided partisanship - we actually have editors on the talkpage accusing others of wanting to shoot all lions, and I've encountered editors in the past who have effectively adopted an "I like lions" or "tigers are the best" position and then proceeded to mess with the article and to abuse the talkpage. I think the topic, sadly, passes GNG, but it needs ruthless editing to cut out OR and hearsay sources. To get away from the whole Alien vs. Predator schtick, I'd suggest something anodyne along the lines of Tiger-lion comparison. It's a more accurate description of what the article ought to be, rather than implying that it's a running account of every time lions and tigers were pitted against each other, and which one lived through it. The present title can redirect to that. I'm not sure it will keep the morbidly curious from editing quite so enthusiastically, but it might help if we scale back the emphasis on which felid will kill the other in the title. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  I think it's at the right title. The fact that it garners attention kind of proves that. It doesn't improve the encyclopedia to move it to a less interesting title IMO. Most of the comparisons, outside of the field of biology, are about "who would win in a fight". In art, for example, it's lions and tigers fighting. In political science, it's used as a metaphor for two equally-fierce opponents. "Versus" is the most accurate preposition. But a title change and TNT should be discussed at the article's talk page and not at an AfD. Protection and blocks may be needed to quell disruption, but that's also not a matter for AfD. – Leviv ich 03:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  A title change isn't a matter for AfD... unless the title is so vague it's impossible to tell what the article's really about, because without a clear topic there's no way to evaluate sources. E Eng 08:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete This article seems to "pick and choose" any historical account involving lions and tigers, instead of focusing on any other animals the lions or tigers may have fought. The fact is, one could make such an article for a wide variety of animal combinations, but it doesn't make it any less WP:SYNTH. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 08:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Compared for centuries and notable. Most animal pairs aren't compared by sources, this particular pair of the two largest cats is. Eostrix ( talk) 12:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Levivich's sources clearly demonstrate the topic meets WP:N, and there's no argument presented here other than personal dislike of the article for deletion. Note it was advertised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tiger_versus_lion that this AfD would be started for reasons that amount to largely personal dislike among the editors. Wily D 12:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above, and the title should stay the same for now (per precedent of its last RM, should be changed only through an RM). ISUREDONTLIKEIT seems to guide the deletion reasoning here. When an established well-sourced page goes on the deletion block it should always be ushered off the stage quickly and handed a bus ticket home. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep and split I agree that the current title leaves the article scope unclear and is a magnet for Batman vs. Ninja Turtles–type cruft. I suggest splitting down the middle: Comparison of lions and tigers for the biology material and Lion–tiger fights for the historical and cultural-depiction material. (And cutting the "opinions" material altogether.) Cheers, gnu 57 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  Seems like a great idea. E Eng 20:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  I like the split suggestion. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment Oh, lordy... may I note that the recent full-on re-bloating of the article by Andrew Davidson does it absolutely no favours. (That stuff was absent until today, Genericusername57) Now it's a synthesis fest all right. There was a reason that the previous resting place of that material, when split off, was deleted at AfD. Now most of it is back like a one-year-old zombie shambling out of the basement, pretty much destroying what tenous hold this article has on staying on topic. Actions like this really make me wonder if it's worth arguing for its continued existence. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:TNT. The article is...a jungle. Sure, it's a notable topic, but is that a reason to keep it? The article is something that is not something that should be kept in this encyclopedia because it is, at this stage at least, quite unsuitable for this project; does GNG justify unencyclopedic articles? | abequinn ^fourteen 21:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete/TNT Absurd amount of synthesis here. The entire Physical and behavioral comparison section needs to go. Just because you can juxtapose a citation about male lions being X size, a citation about female lions being Y size, a citation about male tigers being Z size, and a citation about female tigers being Q size does not mean this is a notable topic. I could imagine an article discussing lions and tigers living or fighting together, but such disconnected content merely makes this a WP:REFBOMB: the sources refer to each cat individually or with respect to the rest of the big cats too. Elephants and rhinoceroses both have ivory and thick skin, but just because you could make detailed comparisons between their sizes and behaviors does not mean it's an encyclopedic topic. Or hell, just makes List of felids ten times bigger because we can compare tigers and leopards or lions and cheetahs too (that's what many of the sources do)! A rename to perhaps Interaction between lions and tigers could work, but not the current state. As the AFD mentioned by Elmidae says, the physical comparison would be "a very limited merger" so Andrew D's addition of the entire thing here is inappropriate. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

You're not right about Andrew D, as you're ignoring the references that do compare the 2 (which is WP:IDONTLIKEIT), but anyways, I said what I said above. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Actually I am right that the AFD closed to be "a very limited merger", and I am right that the majority of the sources there are either about only one of the animals or discuss several big cats together. Yes there are some references that are about the two, but they do not warrant such a detailed, out-of-proportion section. It's not that hard to read Tiger#Characteristics and Lion#Description, this is absurd. Reywas92 ^Talk 17:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

138 references divided by 2 is 69, anything less than that cannot constitute a "majority", and anything more than that cannot amount to "some". Did you really go through all of the references before saying "majority of the sources there are either about only one of the animals or discuss several big cats together" or "there are some references that are about the two"? Leo1pard ( talk) 07:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:42 and WP:SIGCOV. There's sentences and even sections that I'd edit out, but AfD is not the place, and I wouldn't blow it up. There's a silly element to it, but that's not really a reason for deletion. Bearian ( talk) 01:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep and split per Gnu57. Make Tiger versus lion a dab between the two pages suggested by Gnu57, and Lion versus tiger and Tiger v lion and Lion v tiger and Tiger vs lion and Lion vs tiger as redirects to this dab. Fish+ Karate 10:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Split per gnu57. -- JBL ( talk) 14:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect/partial merge to Lion and tiger interactions (Tiger and lion fights also would at least be an improvement). There's a lot to unpack here, and the community has had trouble dealing with the disruption associated with content in this area. In short, the main issue is WP:SYNTH, or more specifically WP:COATRACK the occurs with article bloating when editors try to fit in as much as possible that doesn't match with that is actually notable in the topic. A lot of fluff can be removed or prevented with a title refocus where if it isn't directly about the interaction between the two, it doesn't get in the article.

WP:TNT is very valid in this case despite those saying mistakenly saying AfD shouldn't be used for cleanup. That doesn't look apt to happen right now though. One thing AfD can do to try to clean things up is change the title away from an unencyclopedic title of tiger vs. lion. That would help the scope and maybe stop some coatracking. Per previous AfD conversation, the physical comparison part (or what tends to happen is the article is a section about what lions look like, and one about tigers) is most subject to coatracking and should be very limited, so maybe that name change would help focus things. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 16:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment about spliting – Note that following the last AfD of this article in Jan 2018 (result: keep), the article was split to Physical comparison of tigers and lions in Feb 2018. That new article was nominated twice for AfD [43] [44]. The second time, the result was to merge/redirect it back to Tiger versus lion. You might say we're chasing our tails here. – Leviv ich 16:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  Before you make another pun like that I think it's only fair to warn you that I've served time in prison for manslaughter. E Eng 08:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply

May I ask what is the point of saying that you "served time in prison for manslaughter"? Another user here could have a tough mindset that allowed him / her to confront even those senior to himself / herself. Leo1pard ( talk) 07:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

EEng is just joking around with me for making a pun. He gets a little jealous sometimes when my puns are better than his. Once, EEng made a pun that was so bad, an administrator actually blocked him for it. True story. The block was quickly overturned on appeal (I think because it was deemed to be a punitive block.) Anyway, serving time in prison for manslaughter just means EEng wasn't very good at it and got caught and convincted. I, on the other hand, have never served time in prison for kidnapping or torture. Your underlying point is entirely valid, of course: I am tough, and EEng is senior. – Leviv ich 19:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Pun-ative block. Gotta remember that. E Eng 19:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

It is nice to see this discussion is being treated with all the seriousness it deserves. -- JBL ( talk) 22:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I did my homework and posted my serious contributions right at the beginning. Then I moved onto puns. Next, lolcat pictures. – Leviv ich 22:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Tone on the internet is difficult to judge, so to be clear: my previous comment is entirely in earnest, and is not meant to criticize or chastise anyone. -- JBL ( talk) 23:41, 15 November 2019 (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.