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 delete . ✗plicit 12:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historically this has been the worst article on the English Wikipedia. It's been cleaned up quite a lot since it was last at AfD, but the clean-up only serves to point out that the subject and article is a WP:NOT violation, in this case original thought and indiscriminate collection of information. The article as a whole is largely WP:SYNTH, which falls under our understanding of original research. It take conclusions drawn from a variety of sources and tries to synthesize it into a consistent argument, while also discussing which side is favored. On the indiscriminate part: the history of observed fights and galleries are not organized in any coherent way, and there is no distinguishing criteria for what should be included.
Even if this meets GNG (which is debatable) the cleaned up article is still a massive WP:NOT violation, which based on the deletion policy is ground for removal from Wikipedia via deletion on its own (WP:DEL14 and WP:DEL6.) I submit to the community that this is the best the article is ever going to look, and even in this state, it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and is outside of scope, making deletion the only valid way to fix the problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As indicated by Tony, this page is miles better than it was at the time of the last AFD in 2019. That does not mean it is a suitable article, though. The article contains (in order) a set of opinions from biologists and animal trainers, a section simply indicating the two have/will/might live in the same area and thus might fight each other, and a section listing the historical interactions of the animals in captivity. Oh, and there's some pretty artwork at the end. There are no recorded instances of lions and tigers even interacting, let alone fighting, in the wild, and everything is either opinion or conjecture. In writing this I have briefly considered putting forward the idea of trimming it further and making it "a history of interactions between captive lions and tigers" but that would fail WP:CROSSCAT. In other words, we have an article that basically asks "lions and tigers are cool, who would win?" and then gives a few opinions and conjecture with no real substance. Primefac (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there are most certainly parts of the article that should be cut or improved, the topic itself passes WP:GNG and WP:NOT. WP:OR / WP:SYNTH should indeed be removed, but the article is largely sourced from other parties, frequently as secondary sources, discussing the very topic throughout history, often with regard to the topics' history, which is precisely what this article covers. In direct response to the nomination statement, I submit that it's not yet in the best state it could be, as indeed not only can some of the criticisms be cleaned up at this point, but there are likely still further sources to compile here. A quick search, for example, reveals the Lion vs. Tiger entry in the popular children's series Who Would Win?. —siroχo 08:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just a joke page, and has no place in mainspace. If a user wants to put this on their talk page, or in the humorous content section then go ahead. Else, remove. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I watch this article, I've helped clean up this article, I've argued about this before. "Who would win, animal 1 or animal 2" is a common topic and tiger-or-lion is just one of many permutations. The amount of times it has been brought up does not make it suitable for an encyclopedia article. The amount of SYNTH, conjecture, OR, and other problems this article is made of and attracts is laughable and frustrating. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of this topic has not changed since it survived the previous AfD nominations, in which the existence of multiple reliable sources was demonstrated. WP:GNG is passed. Having a thirdfourth crack at deletion is starting to feel disruptive. The content (and perhaps the title) could be improved, but AfD is not cleanup. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how contentious the last two AfDs were, and the fact that most of the commentators in both were people who had nothing to do with the article (and that the second AfD was hit by the rather infamous Article Rescue Squadron), a third nomination, years after the last and with the article still showing the same issues of SYNTH/OR/etc, is not disruptive. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to expand on my reference to the previous AfD nominations, I'd like to point people to the subthread between Levivich and EEng in the "2nd nomination" discussion, where Levivich details many sources that directly cover the comparison of tigers and lions. Unlike the wall of text citations provided elsewhere, these are not articles which talk only about tigers, or only about lions. They are not only about hypothetical fights. Case in point is this comparison of genetics. Now, I'm fully on board with the complaint that the article is currently in a poor condition, but I absolutely see the WP:POTENTIAL in moving it to Comparison of lions and tigers and basing it on these sources. The fighting angle could be condensed to a single section, expanding with additional sections covering biological/genetic comparisons, political metaphor, representations in art, and so on. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No! No! No! It was already decided that "Comparisons of lion and tigers" is unencyclopedic. We are not resurrecting that. LittleJerry (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT violation. There is no way to reasonably construct an encylopedic article about this topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the article has issues, I don't believe there is anything here that is not ultimately fixable. I don't see any significant change in circumstances since the previous AfD (except, as the nom acknowledges, some of the issues have started to be addressed). In the absence of any significant developments I'm inclined to respect the outcome of the previous AfD and retain the article 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:803F:4CC0:FA53:2D78 (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per siroχo, Barnards.tar.gz and 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:803F:4CC0:FA53:2D78. This article has been a part of English Wikipedia since October 2010 and has interwiki links to analogous entries in Arabic Wikipedia,Persian Wikipedia,Albanian Wikipedia,Turkish Wikipedia, and Vietnamese Wikipedia. It is illustrated with 14 well-chosen entries from Commons and contains 57 extremely detailed inline cites, thus obviating complaints regarding insufficient sourcing. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs) 23:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the most recent sister project to consider it for deletion, es.wiki, deleted it on the same grounds proposed here see es.wiki AfD. Just because other projects haven't cleaned it up yet is not grounds to keep it on en.wiki. The sourcing concerns are not given as rationale for deletion, nor is notability (though I do not think it is notable.)The concern given is that it is a WP:NOT violation that cannot be remediated and has not been remediated after 13 years and two different AfDs. This is the best the article has every looked, and it still falls outside of our scope and is unlikely to ever be improved to the point of not failing NOT. There are 14 reasons for deletion under WP:DELPOL, and this article satisfies at least two of them (DEL6 and DEL14.) So far, no one supporting inclusion has rebutted the arguments in favour of deletion on a policy basis. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DEL6 is “Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources”. But the existence of reliable sources has been demonstrated. It’s a cleanup task to remove any unattributed or SYNTH material, not a deletion task. By all means apply TNT if necessary.
DEL14 is “Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia”, but it’s not clear to me why this topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It’s a notable topic for which multiple reliable sources exist.
By the way, I note there was an RfC which didn’t reach consensus to rename the article “Comparison of lions and tigers”, which is unfortunate because that would be a much better solution - this article shouldn’t be just about hypothetical fight situations. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having articles on other language wikis does not in any way demonstrate notability, nor does having been an article for a long time either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I went through a checked, and the SYNTH/OR is worse than I thought- only a fraction of the sources directly deal with lions & tigers coexisting and/or fighting in any meaningful manner, and the majority of those are rather sensationalist newspaper articles. Even if this article is somehow kept, I will likely gut it to remove the issue. Secondarily, I have doubts about the reliability of the majority of the sources (though I haven't checked them all yet). Thirdly, for everyone who argues that just because tiger vs lion has been mentioned many times: so has many other x vs y, who would win in a fight, where x and y are large animals. That doesn't provide GNG or encyclopedic content on any of side x vs y topics, and it doesn't here either. Good day. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the gorilla v. grizzly debate. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reverted the retargeting of a bunch of redirects to this article by Leo1pard as premature. That may be suitable if a decision to delete is reached, but not before. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree again to delete for same reasons as explained and argued ↑↑. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest to also delete the 17 redirects to various sections of this page rather than redirecting those to the pages on either lion or tiger. See list of redirects at Special:WhatLinksHere/Tiger_versus_lion. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with also deleting those redirects. I just removed the bogus category they were all recently added to, which emptied that category, and deleted the category. - UtherSRG(talk) 11:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A ridiculous waste of time that doesn't belong in any reference work. A vacuous forum argument about nothing of consequence, maintained by a few obsessives, disguised as an 'article'. To describe it as 'synthesis' gives it more credit for coherent structure than it actually has. Cherry-picked nothingness. If people really want to engage in such pointless argumentation, I suggest they go create a specialised ThisVsThatOpedia, where they can argue over the relative combat skills of typewriters versus pop-up toasters if they like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It might need some improvement. A similar article was deleted, Jaguar vs leopard, but we can all agree, that this is surely a topic highly regarded in zoology and literature, among the earliest known generations, until nowadays. Punetor i Rregullt5{talk} 10:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Highly regarded in Zoology and literature? Do you have anything to substantiate that? I highly doubt Zoologists spend their time pondering if X animal could beat up Y. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the books you asked sir, and many more; 1234Some1{talk} 11:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the comment at the bottom. Leo1pard (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Until nowadays" doesn't add anything. Are there any concrete facts to signify that this is or was at any point in history a talking point among scientists and writers. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2023 (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) 11:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC); edited 11:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd advise anyone who might take the above claim seriously to take a look at the sources cited: the first, for instance, is nothing more than a comment made in passing, which does absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump There's far more to WP:Notability than what you see here. This is just an excerpt! I wouldn't put the whole thing here! Leo1pard (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite sure people are capable of looking at the sources and deciding for themselves whether they constitute the sort of in-depth coverage required. Which is why I recommended they do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are 53 sources still here. Earlier, there were no less than 145! This is one of the scientific sources which got removed from the article. Leo1pard (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC); edited 13:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an article about the scientific report. It isn't a scientific source in and of itself. - UtherSRG(talk) 13:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's 53 sensational newspaper articles and pasted-together scientific papers- the former of which are hardly reliable, and the latter of which don't deal with the topic directly but are being used to synthesize a statement comparing/contrasting the two. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier, the article did have more sources (scientific or otherwise) which dealt directly with the topic, but many of these have since been removed: ... Leo1pard (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC); edited 16:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I picked one at random. [1] It says absolutely nothing about the topic of this article. Off-topic sources prove nothing beyond demonstrating that the 'article' is being dominated by people who either don't understand Wikipedia policy, or do understand it, but refuse to let it get in the way of their silly argument. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closer, this huge list of material that supposedly "dealt directly with the topic" is utter garbage. What the flying fuck is an article on 'Kyivan Rus' from the 'Internet Encyclopaedia of Ukraine' doing on it? No mention of lions. No mention of tigers. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Leo1pard I suggest you redact that list, and apologise, before I raise the matter at ANI. Misrepresenting sources in this manner is grossly inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump You didn't look closely enough! The beast which Vladimir II Monomakh was said to be either a lion or tiger! What else should I show you, before making a statement which shows that you simply haven't read enough? Leo1pard (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the Kyivan Rus article about a lion, a tiger, or Monomakh killing a beast in general. Perhaps that's in another article on that site, but not the article you supplied. - UtherSRG(talk) 15:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing about lion vs tiger fights in the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the Balkans, either. [2] Or in the Encyclopaedia Iranica article on Flags of Persia. [3] The supposed list of sources is outright fraudulent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Behold the persistent problem with the article: sources being masqueraded as relevant when, in fact, they say exactly nothing dealing with lions fighting, coexisting, or being compared with tigers. If I went ahead and removed the rampant SYNTH present (an act which would make the keep!voters scream in outrage), the article would be a mere fraction of its present size, and almost entirely lacking in good, reliable sources. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Above reference list is a WP:WALLOFTEXT. I also checked some titles in this list, but many either date to old 19th or early 20th century anecdotes in newspapers, or are about either Tiger OR Lion, but NOT about Tiger versus Lion. But I suppose this list was anyway not meant to be an argument for keeping the page? – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you say that one more time I will block you for being disruptive. Saying the same thing six times, when you can just link to Special:Permalink/925678787 (which I did in my first edit here) and gives the old page in 2019, is pointless and a waste of everyone's time. Please save yourself some effort and stop saying the same thing over and over. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is not a topic worthy of a Wikipedia discussion. Wikipedia is not a tier list of animals or meant to theorize hypothetical matchups between animals. The article's discussion of "historical" conflict between the two species is better discussed within specific pages. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac Sorry for the repetitions. Because the whole thing is cumbersome, let me try to simplify what was in this article:
Historically, the comparative merits of the tiger versus the lion was a popular topic of discussion by hunters, naturalists, artists, and poets, and it continues to inspire the popular imagination in the present day. Lions and tigers have competed in the wild where their ranges have overlapped. They have also been pitted against each other in captivity, either as deliberate contests or as a result of accidental encounters.
...
Leo1pard (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC); edited 16:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was a crap-ton of SYNTH cite-bombed to look good. There's a reason it was pruned considerably, and you arguing to restore it is just infuriating. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to restore the whole thing. Never mind. Leo1pard (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hard to believe this insipid concept for an article exists, much less survived previous discussions. this is like an animal version of "batman can beat up Superman!", WP:SYNTH to its core. ValarianB (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've never understood what this forum chat page is doing masquerading as an article in a supposed reference work. Per TonyBallioni. Bishonen | bishzilla versus Tokyo 17:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete a perfect example of WP:SYNTH; the existence of sources doesn't mean it's a notable topic. Yes, tigers and lions are sometimes compared. It doesn't mean we have something to hang an article on. I too am surprised this survived as long as it did. In the early years of Wikipedia, this kind of stuff would fly. We no longer live in that world, and it's about time for this to go. --Jayron32 18:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:5P1, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. This is not an academic, encyclopaedic article, this is childish silliness. The article does not present a coherent topic - it takes a bunch of barely related sources and tries to combine them together to form a topic. Per WP:NOPAGE everything in here would be better presented elsewhere, where it can be put in proper context, the information on distributions of the species belongs in the articles on the species, the information on depictions of lions in art belongs in Cultural depictions of lions, The information on ancient roman arena fights belongs in articles on ancient roman arena fights, the opinions of random people on who would win in a fight between a lion and a tiger belongs in the bin. This genuinely is one of the worst articles I've ever read. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find Levivich and EEng's discussion at the last AfD enlightening on what sort of article could be made on this topic, but I don't see anything here worth saving, especially not at this title. casualdejekyll 21:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just too much WP:SYNTH/WP:INDISCRIMINATE that muddies the water on the article and past attempts to assess notability due to fluff and WP:COATRACK (and often resulted in drive-by keep !votes). In the last AfD I was looking more at possible merges/redirects, and none exist. The content just isn't encyclopedic. The closest one could get is maybe and article on lion and tiger interactions, but that would best by assessed for notability and done by scratch rather than using any of the history here. Even then, I'm not sure such an article would really be notable either though, but it sure would be more encyclopedic than this POV title and cobbled together content. KoA (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: seems to mostly be original synthesis and bringing together disparate topics to form an article that isn't a topic based in reliable sources. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The last time this came up I was at best unenthiusiastic. Four years later I think this is a perennial destination for synthesis and loosely-connected anecdote that is best consigned to some sort of X vs Y Fandom. It has become a sort of memorial to the sort of things we used to put up with, and has no place in a serious reference work. Acroterion(talk) 02:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been an awful timesink of disruption and cluelessness forever. Any actual reliably sourced encyclopedically relevant facts about tigers or lions should go in their respective articles, rather than in this embarrassment of OR, SYNTH, and POV. Softlavender (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete. the people above have already said it best. lettherebedarklight晚安 05:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking for an exotic pet, stumbled upon many wolf vs hyena, bear vs bull etc. but a classical tiger vs lion will always be a notable topic among people, of any age, who is the real king of the jungle? sure its editors have biases, but in contrast to a wolf vs hyena, or any other batman vs spiderman fiction; animal enthusiasts, kids, adults, poets, literature authors, zoologicts, have always regarded this topic. Punetor i Rregullt5{talk} 11:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add in some more references, that makes it encyclopedic enough?? (we already have the references, no doubt it passes WP:GNG -- Punetor i Rregullt5{talk} 11:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notable books covering the topic 1234 -- Punetor i Rregullt5{talk} 11:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you linked to 4 random non-notable books. the last two look like those big, glossy-page ones that you would expect to find in an elementary school library. none of these establishes notability, these are fluff. ValarianB (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Punetor i Rregullt5, this chain of comments really does display a staggering lack of clue. First of all, do you actually know what this site is? You should really read WP:5 pillars, especially the first point. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an exotic pet comparison guide or a fantasy fight compendium.
Why on earth are you referencing notability when talking about those sources? The notability of the source is irrelevant, what matters is if the source is reliable. Three of those books are literally elementary schooler level texts for children learning to read, how on earth are they suitable sources for an academic encyclopaedia article? 192.76.8.81 (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point brother, I couldn't care less if the article is deleted. Excuse my expression, but I can see why our generation is certainly failing; after all, what good does it bring to debate whether a tiger beats a lion, while you have a life to live and succeed? What started as an 8th grade hobby (editing), apparently grew to caring about lions and tigers online! -- Some1{talk} 17:41, 21 April 2023 (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.