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]
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 NOTCATALOGNOTANY2CATEGORIES guide (as well as NOTCASE from the next section as well). Primefac (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for synthesis of comparisons of animals. That is pure original research, and eligible for deletion under WP:DEL6. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has 205 citations and so the claim that this is OR is absurd. Andrew D. (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE. Please state the supposed synthetic proposition and why this can only be addressed by deletion of the entire page and its history. Andrew D. (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is a synthesis of sourcing to create a topic that is more suited for Wiktversity than it is for Wikipedia. We literally could create an infinite number of similar articles such as Apples versus oranges, Day versus night, Hot versus cold, Humans versus pigs, etc. You could find more than enough sourcing to write each and every one of these articles, but they would intrinsically be a synthesis and that is what any comparison article must be by definition. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like three additional AfDs that should be started. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 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 The issue was discussed at length before – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger vs lion. The topic is highly notable as there has been plenty of coverage of it in a variety of sources going back to Ancient Rome. The sources include books devoted to the topic, scientific papers and even several TV shows about this specific issue, including one by the BBC. The nomination is clearly a blatant case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and their appeal to WP:TNT is not a policy-based argument either. Our actual policies are WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE and so there is not the slightest case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not OR, and I would really love to see anyone touch Comparison of the AK-47 and M16, and I too thought this particular one was a bit silly until I looked into it. Comparison of a unicorn and a dragon would be a deletion candidate because it's components don't exist. L3X1Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is actually down several comparisons such as T34vTiger, SMLEvs91/30vsG98vsM1903, and a few other milhist ones. Civil aircraft probably has a couple of notable planes too. L3X1Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:34, 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]
Comment Not exactly Wikibollocks, more of a ridiculously over-referenced and poorly constructed article, shittily named. If this is a notable topic (and I haven't time to assess that right now), it definitely shouldn't be hyped as if it were an Aliens versus Predator film. A neutral encyclopaedia doesn't aim to get you to read certain topics by a clever over-emotive title. It should by a steady and perhaps historic assessment of two interacting, notable species, rather like Interaction between monetary and fiscal policies. So, Interaction between lions and tigers, with a redirect from Interaction between tigers and lions, plus a 'See also' at Interspecific competition seems the very least we should do to stop people laughing at us. Seeing some of the names of their other AFD-ed articles, the article creator really needs to get a sense of perspective and academic realism in the pages they put together. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:18, 2 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]
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.