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 redirect to Tiger versus lion. To allow a very limited merger from history to the extent editorial consensus supports this. Sandstein 08:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Physical comparison of tigers and lions

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Physical comparison of tigers and lions (1st nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As I stated the last time this article reads more like a personal essay than a proper Wikipedia article. Only a few of the sources used focus on comparing lions and tigers. The rest have lions only as a topic, tigers as a topic or are about big cats/Felidae as a whole, with differences between lions and tigers mentioned in passing.

I would also like to add that this article has problems beyond just notability and sourcing. It is pretty much just "lions X while tigers Y". There isn't anything covered in this article that isn't or can't be covered in the lion or tiger article. Those article already give descriptions of the animals. Why do we need an article describing them together? LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree again. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A big steaming pile of WP:OR. (Now, if bears had been included, oh my!) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As for the nominator's comment about why this can't be covered in other articles like lion and tiger, he has opposed having what he would call "too much", "trivial" or "unimportant" information in pages like those, even if it's covered in WP:reliable sources and is directly related to the subject, such as in this case, which led to the necessity of articles like this being kept separate from those pages, and as I have made it clear already, this is not WP:OR, but a subject that has been directly covered in detail, in a number of reliable sources, for example:

1) Heptner and Sludskiy covered this in great detail in 2 chapters

2) Dr Craig Packer compared them in great detail

3) Charles Frederick Partington Charles Frederick Partington

4) Yamaguchi et al.

5) Nyhus and Tilson

6) The English Cyclopaedia

If it had not been the case that people like him opposed keeping all that relevant information in pages like them, despite his question about why it could not be covered elsewhere, then I would have supported efforts to have all that information covered elsewhere. Leo1pard (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC); edited 09:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said again. We already have physical descriptions of the animals in their respective articles, why do we need an article stating "lions weigh this while tigers weigh this". The problem with this article exists beyond just sourcing and notability (which are still weak), so repeating "this subject has been discussed in reliable sources" is not enough. LittleJerry (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you used your IP address (2602:306:36ED:7500:B10C:DEAA:7928:898) to make a statement about this in the talk-page of a related article, even though you had been logged only a while before and after that edit, which suggests that you logged off to make a statement about this before logging back on, but I've already read your comment, and answered it. For example, you would not always tolerate material that is properly referenced and related to the subject in pages like Lion, and yet you asked why information like this can't be covered elsewhere. Leo1pard (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC); edited 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet simply, I forgot to log back in when I typed that message. I don't know why that's important to you, but its irrelevant to this discussion. Anyway, please explain what information in this article can't be covered in lion, tiger or Tiger versus lion. LittleJerry (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Wikipedia, that's important because using your IP address to influence what's going on in a page like this, despite having an account, is not good, and it's a way of gaining attention to what's going on here, considering how many people look at articles like Lion, and I thought that you weren't keen on articles like Lion having what you'd call "too much information", but if all that information covered in relevant sources can be kept there or the other 2 articles, then I would be happy to do that. Leo1pard (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC); edited 16:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or very limited merge to Tiger versus lion. Mostly WP:SYNTH that could similarly be done for every possible species pair combination by aligning the (excessively-detailed) data from references to each that for the most part never themselves compare the two. Agricolae (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read at least the references given for the content here before commenting 'WP:SYNTH', which has unfortunately become used quite a lot by people who don't bother to read the references to see what they say? Leo1pard (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, enough of them to get a good feel for what appears to be going on. Some of them are directly comparing, but a lot of them are about one species only or give general data about a broad group of species and we are the ones pulling out the specifics and making a direct comparison not made by the source. (And while we are talking about sources, I have concerns about citing the Gettysburg Compiler for anything, given the state of journalism in 1899. Another issue is that significant parts of it seem little more than a grand data-dump of any characteristic that could be found for both species, plus any subspecies of either. It is not what I would consider to be of encyclopedic value, for the most part, and I don't think the removal of all of the fine-grained detail in the grey tables would represent a loss in terms of what I think of as an appropriate level of detail for an encyclopedia. But this is not the place to discuss content decisions.) Agricolae (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really can't see the point (per LittleJerry).Deb (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, delete, with prejudice. Detecting synthesis in content requires examining references, not so with an obviously baseless assemblage of geewhizzery. This is a hodge podge of data shoehorned into a user's narrative, to make some disruptive POINT they have long forgotten in their edit warring hijinks across talk pages, utterly cunning in their disruption of civil discourse, bombing pages with text walls of copypasta and not averse to dragging users to AN/I to refactor their comments. Any verifiable content of this topic should be added and developed in proper article space, but it should be noted there often little to support the users assertion in our article content [a worse sin than SYN]. The creator's contributions are indistinguishable from an elaborate troll, and should be censored, as I said, with prejudice. cygnis insignis 19:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have said that your comment has prejudice, and once again you are showing WP:disregard for referenced content, and making an allegation of trolling, even as I have said to you already, I have read plenty of WP:reliable sources, and I edit articles using them to show what they say, not to make WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or "blatant misrepresentation of sources", which you like to allege. For example, I have used these sources ([1], [2]) to help explain why it is the case that the size ratio of the elephant to the lion is significant as mentioned, or what they said about lions hunting elephants, but there are others who may do WP:biased edits on those articles, and oppose my attempts to correct such edits, which is why I make use of talk-pages like here to try to talk to the opposing user(s) about what they have done, but the opposing user(s) don't always want to listen, and may ignore the consensus, amongst other things, and after repeated attempts to try to talk to the opposing user(s) that I would make complaints like at AN/I. I have debunked your claim more than once, so stop making such claims again. First check the referenced content, then see if what someone like me says is correct or not. Leo1pard (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC); edited 03:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not alleging trolling, I stated that the actions are indistinguishable from trolling. If a vindictive, jilted, or sad person wanted to draw attention to themselves and create disruption for an extended period, this is a model of how to do that ad nauseam. You have happened on or acquired many tactics employed by those who invest their time in deliberate disruption. A major currency in this community is time itself, you demand much of it from many other users with no indication you value it. Not helpful, and the point arrives when prejudice is warranted and healthy for this community. Not a troll, but the actions are indistinguishable from those who are, and this venue is as good a place as any to make that point, before you suck up any more of the community's time. cygnis insignis 04:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already spoken to you about this when you first had a suspicion about me not using talk-pages to improve content, or that I did not read good sources. If you were still suspicious about this, you could have asked me to clarify what I mean when I said that I indeed read good sources, or that I try to improve content. Instead of that, you have committed WP:Boomerang with your refusal to have a proper conversation with me about what I do, even though I had been talking to you about this, and going to other places like here to make prejudiced arguments with me about what I do, partly as you admitted yourself. Leo1pard (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC); edited 05:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tiger versus lion (or just redirect). FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This does not seem very encyclopedic.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tiger versus lion (or just redirect). The presence of Tiger versus lion makes this redundant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of lack of encyclopaedic interest. Everything in the contested text exists, or should be found, in the articles about the respective subjects. Indeed, this falls so clearly under WP:CFORK that it could be used as an example of the practice. Arguments about how well referenced this is can safely be discounted: it's typical of such attempts to suffer from citation overkill. -The Gnome (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, sparingly. I've always wondered why we have the article Tiger versus lion in the first place; the subject doesn't seem remotely encyclopedic to me. But it has plenty of sources and has survived an AfD, so meh, never mind about that. But now it has blossomed into this spinoff, seriously? Physical comparison of tigers and lions actually, literally, begins by talking about and linking to Tiger versus lion: "When discussing fights between lions and tigers, a physical comparison of them is often made." Please, please merge ~~and redirect~~. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I would accept a merge as an alternative, but I hope this doesn't split the vote and make the article stay by default like last time. LittleJerry (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: merge is always a less brutal word to embolden, but if this is a spin off then merging would be redundant. Nevertheless, I will change to merge if the consensus is likely to be split again, as noted above. The question as I see it at this point is, should the redirect exist?, having no current consensus for existence as an article the reasoning gets purdy thin. cygnis insignis 20:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you mention it, I don't think the redirect should exist; it's meaningless. Crossed out. But anyway, I don't see any risk the closing admin will think the discussion defaults to "Keep", or to "No consensus". There's exactly one Keep !vote, from the article's creator. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I don't see the current page title as a likely search term needing a redirect. I also don't see the vast majority of the content on the page as being encyclopedia-worthy, as opposed to just indiscriminate data. I think the small number of details appropriate for tiger vs lion can be added directly without a formal merge. My concern with 'merge' is that it will be taken as licence to just transfer all of the indiscriminate data to the other page, when I am thinking no more than the equivalent of a very short paragraph highlighting a handful of specific characteristics, at most. (I also agree with the earlier comment about the tiger vs lion page itself being of dubious encyclopedic value, but that is a different issue.) Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a judgement call, of course, cygnis insignis, but do you truly believe that a Wikipedia user would type and look up "physical"+"comparison"+"lions"+"tigers" instead of the obvious and plain "lions"+"tigers"? I highly doubt it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's been a lot of tiger vs. lion articles needing to be deleted lately for these same problems. Looking over this one, I don't see anything really worth merging, especially considering previous AfDs in this general subject. Better to just prune it out and let the other articles handle the subject matter that's already covered appropriately. Tiger versus lion is still a mess of a topic in terms of what is WP:DUE, so better to avoid a redirect and further WP:COATRACKs we've been trying to clean up here at AfD. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:42, 19 November 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.