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 No consensus The division between "delete" and "keep" opinions was evenly split following the substantial edits made by Colonel Warden and others. Nearly everyone, including those who had commented before the edits, acknowledged the addition of sourcing and content, with some changing their opinions and others maintaining them. There still remains a difference of opinion as to whether the topic of "tiger vs. lion" is independently notable. Mandsford 16:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger vs lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

steaming pile of Original Research, Essay WuhWuzDat 13:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep: WP:OR, subjective opinion, personal essay. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: My Delete opinion only applies to the version as it was tagged - if Colonel Warden can make us a better version (see below), I will probably change my mind. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to Keep now that Colonel Warden has created a much better and wholly new version of article, properly referenced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Colonel Warden's version of the article suffers badly from WP:SYNTH issues. See Redfarmer's comments below. SnottyWong ^babble 14:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I still don't think it should be deleted - it should be improved further. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with delete reason, also WP:NOTWEBHOST. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. This one raised my eyebrows a tad bit. Honestly, my mama can take a tiger any day of the week. Word. Cindamuse (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Complete OR. Derild4921☼ 14:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Redfarmer (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After reading Colonel Warden's new version, I maintain my WP:VOTE to delete based on the fact that the article is a synthesis of sources. Half of it is sourced from an article on tiger morphology. The sentence asserting its importance is sourced from a single work by the philosopher José Ortega y Gasset. If there is an appropriate article on animal fights or on the animals themselves that would benefit, I wouldn't oppose a merge. The fact that the editor spent so much time to take an obvious personal essay (it was even written in the first person) and turn it into a synthesis is baffling to me and seems counterproductive. If we really need an article comparing the two species, might I suggest a comprehensive article detailing strengths of other animals, lest Wikipedia become littered with articles such as "Lion vs. Bear", "Kangaroo vs. Wallaby", and the ever popular "Superman vs. Batman". Redfarmer (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If one writes without sources, one is accused of OR and personal essay. If one copies a single source, one is accused of copyright violation or plagiarism. If one writes from multiple sources, one is accused of synthesis. What's baffling is how one supposed to write an article at all, in the face of such determined obstruction. I look for more information to understand your position but find that, rather than creating articles, you seem to prefer to delete them. Anyway, I have added another citation to backup the José Ortega y Gasset one. Many of these sources state that the lion vs tiger topic is a notable one and so I could have a great long string of citations but that would be inelegant. Two should be ample. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't dignify your remarks with a response, but, if you want to demonstrate you are acting in WP:AFG here, you should seriously consider retracting the mud-slinging above (a.k.a. taking several events from three years ago out of context) and stop with the fighting below. I've read your rationale for saving it. I don't agree. Redfarmer (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It's almost as if this is a game for Colonel Warden. If he can save the article from being deleted, he wins the game. The more unlikely it is that the article would have been kept (i.e. the worse the article was), the more points he gets. He is apparently going for the all-time high score on this one. This is Colonel's M.O., not just an isolated incident. SnottyWong ^converse 23:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you we all should leave out the personal comments and stick to commenting on the article itself. If you have anyone has an issue with another editor, an AfD discussion is not the place for it - there are other venues for that kind of thing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well said! Redfarmer (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but Keep The topic itself is notable, and seems to generate some interest. I... hope that the author continues to contribute to WP and matures as a writer. p.s. He is correct in his assessment of this issue. Tigers push out lions in India where both are found. See:Asiatic Lion Borock (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR. Do Siberian tigers have internet access? Salih (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No bears? Oh, my!!! Unwikified original essay. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Almost sounds like an episode of Deadliest Warriors... Article is complete WP:OR and looks like a really big snowball! - Pmedema (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... This is the first snowball I've seen thrown back into the freezer! Unfortunately, after reading all the below arguments and looking at the new article and it's references, I still feel that the article is not notable. - Pmedema (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Original research, essay. Quite interesting to read. I agree that I would put my money on the tiger. But given the necessary gender diversity, instead of fighting they could have fun starting little Ligers or Tiglons. The scary thing about this article is that it could generate a spew of articles such as Monkeys vs otters, or Python vs octopus, much like all the "bilateral relations" articles. Edison (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The bilateral relations articles are quite relevant because animals are commonly used to symbolise countries and so we have numerous works with titles like The lion and the tiger: the rise and fall of the British Raj and Bengal Tiger and British Lion. No-one is going to be deleting the corresponding relation article, India – United Kingdom relations, because that topic has great notability. These matters turn upon the notability of the topic which is evidenced by the level of sourcing. In this case, we have abundant sourcing too. Would you not agree that a relations article with this level of sources, as listed below, would always be kept? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus?  pablo 09:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Joe Versus the Volcano? SnottyWong ^confabulate 14:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bambi Meets Godzilla? Edison (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis versus Carl Perkins! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLFVprIjtpw&feature=related--Shirt58 (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep When one searches for sources, rather than simply expressing a personal opinion, one immediately finds that there are multiple books with this title and topic such as Lion vs Tiger and Lion vs tiger. The topic is also covered in other sources such as Animal life and lore and Lion and tiger. This topic clearly has great notability and so should be kept for improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an article of this title could be written, but this certainly isn't it - this is pure personal opinion/OR. But if someone were to rewrite it from scratch as a proper article, that might be cool -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Watch this space. But the existing text seems quite reasonable. When it says things like the tiger being a solitary hunter while the lion hunts in a pride, do you dispute the accuracy of these statements? What is supposed to be original here? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My concern about OR is that the article should not read is if it is trying to resolve the question itself (ie the "here to prove who would win in this fight" aim is the wrong approach for an encyclopedia), but should echo what reliable sources have said about it. So I don't think there would be any problem stating simple factual things regarding solitary hunting, prides, etc, but I think it would be wrong to draw any unreferenced conclusions from them - the only conclusions that should really be allowed are conclusions made in reliable sources. Anyway, best of luck - I look forward to seeing a new version :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have also convinced me Colonel. I changed my vote to Keep, even though it's not really a vote. Borock (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This entire approach is unencyclopedic. How about the battle of the breakfast foods: orange juice v. grapefruit juice? Or let's write an original essay on muscle cars, Ford v. Chevy... Maybe we could speculate about who would win a fight between pitbull v. rottweiler. Heck, let's not stop there, let's get into something we can all appreciate, like cake v. ice cream. Wow, there are a million possibilities and that is exactly the point. The article tiger vs. lion is, plain and simple, an unencyclopedic treatment of a trivial, whimsical subject. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wait, there's more: ninja v. Navy SEAL, bobcat v. badger, milk v. chocolate milk, licorice v. red rope candy, sleeper sofa v. futon, football v. baseball, black and white film v. colorized film, LCD TV v. plasma TV, apartment v. condo, Maui v. Kauai, offset printing v. lithography, traditional vacuum cleaner v. bagless vacuum cleaner, paint thinner v. acetone, hardback v. paperback... Carrite (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• These are arguments to avoid: straw men and circular argument. Also, for some existing examples of versus articles, please see Nature versus nurture, Real versus nominal value, Pirates versus ninjas, Greed versus grievance, Alien versus Predator &c. The test is not whether you like a topic or not as this is not a popularity contest or vote. The test is whether the topic will stand up or not - do we have the sources to make something of it. In this case, we do. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superman vs Mighty Mouse? Edison (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per obvious OR issues. The subject is clearly unencyclopedic. The straw man argument is actually more convincing than Warden's argument. The fact that articles like these get tagged for rescue is what gives ARS a bad name. SnottyWong ^speak 18:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is your opinion which is obvious OR, being unsupported by a shred of evidence or policy. When one actually checks the facts, it is the work of moments to find multiple encyclopedia which discuss the topic such as The New and complete American encyclopedia or The British encyclopedia. The topic is therefore encyclopedic. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect. Every statement in this article is unsourced. Statements like: "One of the most asked questions, im here to prove who would win in this fight" clearly have an unencyclopedic tone, and are by definition original research until they are sourced. The rest of the article is similar. I highly doubt that this is "one of the most asked questions". The sources you list do discuss the topic of lions, and the topic of tigers (even on the same page!) but the references to lions and tigers actually fighting are only trivial mentions. For instance, in the British Encyclopedia link you sent, the only reference is this sentence: "Conflicts, are reported by travellers, not unfrequently to occur between the lion and the tiger, carried on with all that intrepidity and perseverance, with all that energy and fierceness, which might naturally be expected, and ending sometimes only in the complete destruction mutilation of both." At the risk of being accused of using the straw man argument again, I'm afraid that if we allow articles like this to remain then we are inviting the creation of articles on every combination of life form pairs that have ever been documented to fight. If you need a policy to reference, WP:NOTDIR comes to mind. The idea that you are arguing to keep this garbage article is appalling. I'm now convinced that you will vote to keep anything. SnottyWong ^talk 23:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't vote; I produce evidence and improve such articles as directed by our editing policy. I have done a little work on the article now, adding some sourcing which indicates that this match-up was made in Roman times. The curator of the Bronx Zoo is cited as saying that the tiger was the betting favourite then. By such work, we put flesh on the bones of this early draft and so the encyclopedia is built. Idle critics who do nothing to assist such work are not needed and attempts to delete such work-in-progress which are made without any evidence or policy support are disruption. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per original nominator and Snottwong's arguments alike. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's clear that others have discussed this topic before (Who would win a fight of lion vs. tiger?), including entire books (Yes, kids' books but written with serious intent.) So it's not us on WP who are setting it up, which would be OR. I also wouldn't have any problem with Mustang vs. Camaro or even Mustang vs. Zero since these are also notable match-ups which have been discussed in the literature. -Jaque Hammer (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ah, the old "quien es mas macho" article. Even if this were given a slightly less ridiculous name (say "Comparison of lions and tigers") this is not a topic of academic study. Of course, Lions are. And so are Tigers. And there common characteristics and differences driven by their different environments and evolutionary histories, have been remarked on. So take heart! There are articles about all this and more. On their family and their genus where some comparitive consideration (well sourced, preferably from the voluminous academic literature) might be judiciously placed. And while the binary thinkers among us may get their noodle into a knot wondering who would "win" a fight, I'm here to reassure them. They're both already winners: The product of a marvelous selective process that made them wonderfully adapted to their environments, and dramatically different style of life. A tiger trying to live on a lions terms in open savannah would also lose (and would probably be killed by the pride for trying). And a lion making a go of it in the Taiga would likewise come up short. Bravo to whoever placed the "rescue" tag. Just when one thought the ARS was beyond parody...Bali ultimate (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• More unsupported OR. You claim that this is not a topic of academic study but produce no evidence. Yet again, when one actually looks, one finds the comparative strength of the two big cats discussed in the journal Nature — The Strength of the Lion and the Tiger. As this is one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals, your claim is refuted. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The letter from an 1875 issue of Nature is amusing, but it falls considerably short of being a credible indication of academic merit. A letter to the editor from 135 years ago? No peer-reviewed articles? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We do not require academic sources for our topics. It is our explicit policy that Wikipedia is not an academic work. It is a general encyclopedia which is intended to be read by anyone and everyone. In establishing notability, we just require independent, reliable sources and this has been done. If you think that there is a requirement to do more, please produce a policy to support your personal opinion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Examination of these sources raises some concern as to their reliability. A statement about the popularity of a comparison is referenced with a translation of a Spanish book from 1942. There are two historically interesting newspaper articles that deal with the subject, but are each more than 50 years old. The only recent work that deals with the subject has only a trivial, one sentence mention. Confirmation bias at work? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, what we seem to have here is recentism. Do you seriously suppose that the nature of lions and tigers has changed significantly in the last century and that people did not have some reasonable understanding of them? One might argue that understanding is more limited nowadays as these species are nearly extinct and so there are fewer specimens to be studied. In any case, I am not aware of any time limit for our sources. Wikipedia was seeded with the 1911 Britannica, for example, and its centenary is next year. The great advantage of sources of this age is that they are free of copyright and so the full text is more readily available. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What you don't appear to understand is the fact that scientific understanding of lions and tigers -- their natural history, their genetics, their relationship with their environment and other species, the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation (and on and on it goes) is all dramatically improved over 135 years ago. If "one" argued that scientific "understanding is more limited nowadays" than one would be a fool. Same goes for almost anything on science from 1911 -- almost all of it has been improved/corrected/clarified. The great disadvantage of old, free sources is that they're often frequently wrong but are all to often used by wikipedia editors because they're available online and "free" with little regard to evaluating their accuracy.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you produce some more recent sources then we shall be happy to consider them. The source I like best so far is this which compares tiger and lion morphology in good detail. The publication date for this is 2010 and so the selective criticism we see here is just game playing rather than a serious assessment of the sources provided. Taken together, the numerous sources well demonstrate the notability of the topic. Refining our coverage for best accuracy is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's in fact an excellent source on tigers (though sadly, would need to be gotten out of a library since only every 3rd page is free; relying on that as is could lead to major trouble and misunderstanding), and if one is interested in some statistics on the comparative average cranial volumes and other morphological comparisons across the panthera genus (which includes lions) it is of some more general interest. But it is not remotely about "Tiger vs lion." The correct place for comparative info about panthera is the Panthera article. Ok, last word from me to the biologically illiterate.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The source states, inter alia, that "there is much popular debate as to whether tigers are bigger than lions". It then goes on to discuss the comparison in detail. This is very much our topic and your failure to recognise this seems to be a failure of ordinary literacy, let alone biology. As you are having such difficulty with this text, I have added some more sources to the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • A 135 year old one paragraph letter to an editor making assertions about biomechanics presented as modern-day "fact" in an article? Laughable.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have reason to believe that the information is mistaken? In any case the letter refers us to a book and the letter is in Nature which is as good as it comes. Is there a more recent study? Hobit (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, all estimates of relative strength of animals from 135 years ago are wrong, deprecated, etc... At any rate, discussion of these questions of natural science should be held at the genus level, Panthera, possibly at the family level, Felidae, and to a limited extent at the articles on Tigers and Lions. And it's a one paragraph letter to an editor for chrissake, that does nothing other than seek to correct what he took as a misinterpretation of his research in another article.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll assume you have some background in the area to be able to make that assessment, I don't see why we'd expect things to be different. I think the fact that the one paragraph is A) on-line and B) concise and directly addresses the issue says something. The fact that Nature took the time to publish such a letter says something too, though perhaps I hold that journal in too high of regard. Finally I _think_ he refers to his book, not an article. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per improvements made since monimation. Topic shown as notable, and coverage is suitable for this encyclopedic article on the subject. The project is well served by this article remaining and being further improved over time and through the course of regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has been greatly improved, plenty of references and historical accounts. And since Google search shows 1,430,000 results, it must be something people talk about quite often. Dream Focus 04:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Vastly improved since my delete vote was cast. My main concern is with the opening statement, "The comparative merits of the tiger versus the lion is a popular topic amongst hunters and naturalists." The citations used to back this up are from 1899 and 1942 (albeit in a 2007 translation) and don't reflect current opinion. Naturalists, stopped making such comparisons around the time they stopped wearing Pith helmets. If the statement can be reworded (should be simple) in a way that reflects this, perhaps mentioning that it continues to inspire the popular imagination, I'd be more than happy to change my vote to keep. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The beautiful thing about wikipedia is anyone can edit. Please change the article the way you see fit to make it keepable. :) Okip 12:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I made those changes yesterday, so weak keep. Still not convinced it's encyclopedic. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Closing administrator please note, the complete transformation of this article.[1] I think there was a little lack of seeing the true WP:POTENTIAL of this article, which is common in deletion discussions. "Delete, merge, or keep articles on topics based on their potential notability and verification, not just how they look now." Sources are reliable and notable. To quote the New York Times, "...a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow...notion of what sort of curiosity an online encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come." Thanks. Okip 12:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's The New York Review of Books, not the New York Times... Fram (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that there have still been many delete !votes after this "complete transformation" of the article, indicating that the subject itself is problematic, not just the current state of the article. SnottyWong ^confess 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, might be sourced, but this is unencyclopedic "Superman vs. Batman" stuff. Hairhorn (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even though I personally feel delete is in order, I wouldn't oppose this discussion being closed as "no consensus" given the confusing labyrinth this discussion seems to have fallen in. It's hard anymore to judge who was for delete/keep before or after Colonel Warden's new version. No consensus would allow anyone who still feels it should be deleted to open a new discussion and start from scratch. It seems a more sane proposal at this point. Redfarmer (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic "ARS takeover" scenario, and another reason why the ((rescue)) template should be taken to TfD. We start out with an article that unquestionably should be deleted (note there were 11 delete !votes in a row before the first keep !vote). Then a user comes along and desperately tries to add sources and completely rewrite the article so that it is barely passable (and, in my opinion, has failed to do so), and then tags the article for rescue. Then, along come at least 3 ARS members to pile on the keep !votes (namely, MichealQSchmidt, Dream Focus, and Okip). Here's my question: how is this helpful? Why must we battle about such articles? What is so terrible about deleting an article which is 100% original research and would require a complete rewrite? Just because an article gets deleted today doesn't mean it can't be recreated at a later date by someone who is not going to fill it with OR. Attempting to quickly rewrite a terrible article from scratch during an AfD always results in the long, drawn out, drama-ridden AfD discussions like this one, and it is disruptive because everyone is !voting on different versions of the article. Not even one word of the original article has been preserved at this point. If your goal was to create a good "Tiger vs lion" article (as opposed to "winning" an AfD against the "unreasonable vicious hordes of deletionists"), wouldn't it be better for everyone if you allowed the unsatisfactory version of the article to be deleted, and then start the article from scratch on your own time rather than trying to jam something together in less than 7 days? I just don't understand this mentality. SnottyWong ^squeal 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with !voting to delete an article based on its current content, and then changing one's mind if someone comes along and rewrites it. And there's nothing wrong with rewriting it during the AfD - there's no need to delete the original and then start again. Also, I really don't think that personalizing things and targeting criticism at individuals is helping your case - this is about the article itself, not about who has commented and what projects they might be part of - and I'm sure I don't need to point out WP:AGF, as I feel sure you must be aware of it. So come on, please, just state your opinion about the article itself, not about other people, and leave others to state theirs too - and then leave the closing admin to judge the consensus without trying to canvass him/her -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So who's trying to win a game now? Why do people resent the fact that others are prepared to work harder than they are to improve articles? If you don't understand the mentality of people who work to improve the encyclopedia, rather than treat it as a battlefield where they have to win arguments, then I would suggest that Wikipedia is the wrong place for you. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes, I resent the fact that other people are improving the encyclopedia (that was sarcasm, if you didn't pick up on it). If people are unable to read my comments and respond to them without callowly twisting my words and drawing conclusions that just aren't there, then I think I need to withdraw from this discussion. SnottyWong ^verbalize 17:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to SnottyWong). The policies WP:IMPERFECT and WP:BEFORE clearly indicate that we should develop poor drafts rather than deleting them. One reason for this is that deletion is a redundant step if we expect to be keeping the article, even as a stub. Another reason is that it gives less offence to the original author who is often forgotten in this. We should acknowledge his contribution in starting the topic, however imperfectly, and spare him the annoyance of deletion templates which tend to have an uncivil effect contrary to WP:BITE. See his talk page where the incivility continues even now. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snotty(ec): Rewriting an article shouldn't be viewed as a "hijacking". It happens all the time without drama. Just hours ago I re-wrote Eataly and the nominator withdrew the AfD nomination based on the rewrite. Sometimes horrible articles are created on notable subjects. Don't fall into a battle mindset just because "deletionists" and "inclusionists" will inevitably lock heads on a small percentage of AfDs where the intractable question is whether the coverage is "significant" enough to show notability and the sourcing is reasonably debatable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ARS takeover? Kindly stop your constant attacks against the ARS and certain members such as myself. Someone tried to speedy delete this, and then sent it to AFD the same day it was created, even when it was being worked on. If it had been left it alone, it might've continued to be improved on its own. Most articles don't look that great their first day out. You give them a chance to grow. Once they are out there, others will find them and contribute to them. That's how it works. People are just in too big of a rush to try to delete things which aren't harming anyone, and thus no reason to be so determined to kill them their first day here. Dream Focus 20:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, Snottywong, I would encourage a different view. If an article is so badly in need of deletion such that someone comes along and completely rewrites it during the AfD, what's wrong with that? It's essentially a validation of your original criticisms. The only real difference is that if someone comes along and re-creates the article and improves it after deletion, we risk random editors tagging it for G4. I have no problems at all with saying "the article was worthless before, but has been completely revamped". Really, that's the entire idea of the ARS: finding articles that suck and are AfD'ed on topics that are notable and worthy of encyclopedic treatment. I was skeptical that this was such a topic, but the RS'es Colonel Warden uncovered convinced me. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The attempt to improve the article's content cannot mitigate against the fact that the topic is inherently unencyclopedic. Relevant information can be included in other articles. There is no substantive categorical basis for this topic. Eusebeus (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not seem that "substantive categorical basis" has a basis in policy. My impression that that what you and others are getting at is that you don't like comparative articles. But there are at least two categorical articles which this topic overlaps with. One is big cat, for which we have a mediocre article, and the other is king of the beasts, which currently redirects to lion. This latter is where I propose to work next since finding a source which states that, in China, the tiger is considered king of the beasts. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep already Sources are there that establish notability of topic. The article is in good shape and well referenced. Forget about the past or personal feelings about other editors. The article is the thing. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability of the topic has been clearly demonstrated. I note that a couple of editors have referred to WP:SYNTH above, but without indicating what novel conclusion is being drawn here that is not in the sources. Basing an article on multiple sources is best practice, not original research by synthesis. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the topic is stupid, agree that the as-nominated status of the article was laughable, and wish that Colonel Warden's efforts had been better invested into an article with more encyclopedic importance. Yet I can't disagree with a Nature citation, even if it is old, and even if it is simply a letter to the editor. If notability is not temporary, then old citations that prove a topic was at one time perceived as much more important than it is today are just fine, although the article should be worded to reflect that appropriately. By all means, let the cleanup continue... Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked into the background to the Nature citation. The author was Samuel Houghton who proved to be an interesting chap. He spent 10 years studying animals and wrote a large work, Principles of Animal Mechanics, which is what he is referring to in Nature. He put his knowledge to good use by formulating exact equations for hanging people in a more humane manner - something of a deletionist too, you might say. :) He was a professor and Fellow of the Royal Society so the quality of his scholarship was well recognised in his day. One of our goals is to write about topics with a historical perspective and so it seems good to refer to such work to give a feel for the development of knowledge and understanding in this area. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I agree that the original article should be deleted, and I question whether the article creator made the article just to screw with us. The article has been completely rewritten and has little resemblance to the original. I actually knew that the tiger vs. lion thing was a pop culture matter of some prominence in the distant past, but until Colonel started finding sources, I had no idea a worthwhile article could be constructed. At this point I think it can. (I would like to note for the benefit of Snottywong that I did not find this discussion because it was nominated for rescue, I found it on my own.)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if we're talking about how we found this, I saw it mentioned on Snottywong's talk page... Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the original research claims given above. The attempts to scrounge up disparate sources to fix this leaky ship as this AfD has gone on seems to be a bit problematic as well. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked above, what novel conclusion is being drawn here that doesn't come from the sources? If there is none, then WP:SYNTH does not apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:N quite nicely. Is it a reasonable topic for an article? Maybe. Certainly not one I'd have picked. But it seems a number of RSes have discussed the exact topic over time... (I also found this page via SW's talk page). Hobit (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, different species of animals fighting each other seem to be a topic of general conversation (as per the sources provided), but doesn't seem that notable on the face of it. Bit of synth surely to try and pull an article out of all that, unless we're going to follow up with Lion vs Bear, Orca vs Great White... WikiuserNI (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject of many scholarly and popular books, as found by Lt. Col. Warden. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its mentioned in some books, in a trivial manner for the most part. There's a kids book on the subject, if that's what you mean. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my personal Relations between Helmut Kohl and Kurt Tucholsky standard. You can make up a little pseudo-article out of most pairings of notable subjects, but the overwhelming majority of such pairings should not have an article. It's not hard to create a superficial appearance of legitimacy of such a topic, but that doesn't make the combination useful or notable. In the light of the earlier debates for which I created this standard, I find this source particularly disconcerting. Are we going to see Elephant vs. Rhinoceros, Fish vs. turtle, Dairy cow vs. fruit bat, Rottweiler vs. chimpanzee, etc.? I hope not. Hans Adler 10:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So what you seem to be saying is that we should ignore the evidence of sources and base Wikipedia upon the opinion of editors such as yourself. What is your authority for this position? Given that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, how do you propose we weigh such opinions - by voting? Colonel Warden (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What I am saying is that we need to apply common sense, as usual. The notability rules have been designed to decide whether something that a priori looks like something that might appear in an encyclopedia is in fact notable enough. They have not been designed with a priori implausible topics such as the phrase "decent enough" (37,400 Google Books hits) or "Tiger vs. lion" in mind. Hans Adler 11:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• An encyclopaedia, by definition, encompasses the full circle of knowledge. I expect to find material of this sort in an encyclopaedia and have cited a couple of examples above. If you have some narrower view of our scope, then you are welcome to it, but I'm not seeing the basis on which you expect your view to trump mine. The open nature of Wikipedia indicates that our coverage should be a union of our views, not an intersection. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. You are confusing encyclopedias with libraries. Hans Adler 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. It is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics [Wikipedia] can cover, or the total amount of content". Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't make it OK to spam the encyclopedia with irrelevant trivia. This topic deserves a sentence or two in a small number of related articles where it makes sense, but even a redirect is too much. This only makes it harder for our readers to find legitimate content. Hans Adler 06:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain how the topic is objectively more trivial and irrelevant than an article of your creation such as The boy Jones, say. Without some objective distinction and evidence to support it, your opinion seems to be only a matter of taste. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The boy Jones" was the 19th century version of Michael Fagan: Very widely reported in the newspapers, repeatedly, over many years. This includes an in-depth piece of several pages written by Charles Dickens in 1888, half a century after the incident happened, as well as caricatures in Punch. A children's book was written about him, and a mainstream film deals with him. It's reasonable to have a separate article about the historical person when we already have an article about the film, which of course misrepresents the facts for effect, as all films do. Now if the newspapers in the 1840s had given significant amount of space to the question who would win in the fight between a lion and a tiger, if Dickens had seriously considered the question, and if there were a serious children's book and a documentary about the question, or maybe a dilly dramatisation in film – then this article would become a no-brainer for keep. But that's not the case, and there is in fact nothing much that would raise the topic from out of the swamp of unsuitable topics that are simply not worthy of attention. There is some indication here that the general topic of "X vs. Y" is a relatively common trope in children's literature and perhaps other literature as well. That would be a good core for an article. But I simply don't understand why some people, instead of writing one reasonable article about a reasonably broad topic, must split it into a myriad of absurdly specific parallel subtopics that don't give any insight and cannot be properly maintained. Hans Adler 10:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You perhaps do not appreciate the extent to which this tiger vs lion matter has been covered. We have staged events, books, paintings, films, TV, newspapers, websites &c. For example, see this which contains hundreds of cuttings about the topic spanning millenia. So far as encyclopaedic coverage is concerned, I have identified 3 encyclopaedia which have covered the tiger vs lion topic while I've only found one which talks of the boy Jones. There is not a significant objective difference. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The coverage found on the topic is trivial. There's currently no non-trivial info in the article that can't already be found in the individual tiger and lion articles. Epbr123 (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to Comparison between lion and tiger. The comparisons between these two animals are quite notable, and such a title better hits on the point. Sebwite (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It already uses quite a few reliable sources. More could be added since it was a significant 18th and 19th century artistic trope. Art section added. A literary trope too [2]. Novickas (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been vastly improved since AFD began. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or move and rescope to "lion-tiger contest", although the winner and backup vote is more likely no consensus. Discussion:

Declined to comment earlier in the AFD; did not read the earlier article; read the side drama and skimmed the current AFD and article. The fact is that Judaism and bus stops was a much better article than this is now and it still got deleted by mass consensus. With all due respect to colonels, WP:AND is still the controlling policy, q.v.

The question as to the current misbegotten name is whether the topic "lion-tiger comparisons and contrasts" is notable. The answer is that the sources just don't consider this an independent topic. I am disappointed that both encyclopedia links do not lead to comparison articles as one might (or might not) infer from advertising, but to long articles on Felis that have only passing comparison references; and it looks like the Linneans moved Panthera leo and P. tigris out of that group long ago.

The idea that this "vs." is somehow "classic" may be more sustainable if the topic were narrowed to lion-tiger contest, which actually has a bit of hope of being a notable topic: thus move and scale down would work if that were agreed to be the topic (this would allow an organization into actual and virtual contests, physical comparison, and "in popular culture", which would cover most of the current article, while king of the beasts (currently pointing here) and King of the Beasts (currently pointing to lion) would not fit the new title and should be a separate sourced stub). The fact is that the misideaed title confuses the scope, and IF editors agree on the scope the deletion discussion can be settled better. Merge to a new short section of Panthera would also be fine, whether it's a merge of the whole article, or just of the "king" text and redirects.

Exceptions to WP:AND are rare and simply do not extend to Alien vs. Batman, Andrew vs. Katrina articles (at risk of offense, Judaism and violence should – probably – be moved to violence in Judaism). In fact, one might argue this concept is also implicit in the general ban on controversy or criticism sections, for the exact same reasons! The title "tiger vs lion" leads to concepts of which animal is inherently better (as seen in 19th-c. fiction), not to concepts of which has statistically won more contests, and thus is a POV magnet; POV-magnet titles should be redirected or scrubbed. Comparisons are generally OR, but physical contests are an easily grokked topic and can keep most content with a reorg. If the scope is limited to "lion-tiger contest" (with "tiger-lion contest" as a redirect of course), that may cut through the issue. JJB 22:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I know all about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I would still invite contributors to consider whether any one of the 200 or so articles in Category:Software comparisons is more notable than this topic to the general audience, rather than to the geeky Wikipedia editor demographic. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Historical depictions of Panthera. The newly rewritten article doesn't have much to do with the older one, and "Tiger vs Lion" is admittedly a silly name.--hkr Laozi speak 23:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I wouldn't oppose a merge to Panthera as JJB suggested.--hkr Laozi speak 23:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. An article like that would be justified if "tiger versus lion" would be a notable, somewhat established theme in culture, that can be found in various publication. But a somewhat arbitrary scenario considered by a popular science show or a very few individual and not particularly distinguished authors does not establish a notable cultural theme or term. --Kmhkmh (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the very simple basis that there are sufficient specific sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Hans' "non-notable pairings of notable subjects" point very concisely and precisely identifies which comparisons are and which are not acceptable. It is also the reason why this article should be kept: it does not pass through the above sieve; the sources verify that this is a notable pairing.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2010 (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.