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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While this discussion has mostly led to a split in opinions between deletion and merging, no consensus for a particular outcome has ultimately arisen. Discussion can continue on the article's talk page if desired. North America1000 06:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Physical comparison of tigers and lions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Physical comparison of tigers and lions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted for much of the same reasons as the recently deleted Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards. It 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. We also already have a Tiger vs lion article and comparisons between the species can be summarized there. LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. LittleJerry (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge This is a spinoff from Tiger vs lion per WP:SPLIT. As the parent article was large, it's reasonable to try this. If there's a problem with the separation then we'd just merge them back together. Deletion would not be appropriate per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Tiger versus lion, this was forked out of Tiger versus lion by another user due to the great detail, all from references, present in the parent article, and let me warn that this is far better than some other articles that you managed to get deleted.
1) Heptner and Sludskiy compared the two, saying that they were the two largest species.[1]
2) Haas et al. compared the two.[2] Leo1pard (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3) Vratislav Mazák compared them in things like the length of the skull.[3] Leo1pard (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it still has the same problems. Its just a larger article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you've only given examples of sources mentioning comparisons between the two in passing. This was the same problem with the leopard/jaguar/cheetah article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is much more to this than that, I was not even finished giving you examples, and do I have to tell you what you forgot to do when nominating this for deletion? Leo1pard (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I didn't infrom you first. But that does not automatically invalidate the deletion process. LittleJerry (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the creator. Primefac had forked this from the main article, to reduce the immense detail in the main article, and it's not like the detail did not have sources. In fact, there are a lot of sources, listing all those sources here that talk about the issue of the lion versus tiger here would make this page very long. Leo1pard (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry You deleted my comments! This is bias! Leo1pard (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was an editing conflict mistake. LittleJerry (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you also broke another rule here. Leo1pard (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to, it was an editing conflict. Go ahead and post it again. LittleJerry (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even aside from the accidental deletion of my comment, you did not do one important thing when nominating this for deletion. Leo1pard (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leo1pard, there is no requirement for an AFD nominator to inform the creator of a page (I assume that's what you're referring to). Primefac (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
  • Delete. LittleJerry hit the nail on the head in their initial nomination. This suffers from the same WP:SYNTH issues as recently cross-categorization AfDs of other big cats.[1][2] I reads like someone was trying to pull as much information as possible from sources when in realty, something like Physical_comparison_of_tigers_and_lions#Weight should just be tiger/lion weights range from X-Y at their given articles. What currently exists falls into WP:ISNOT territory.
I'm also seeing heavy reliance on primary sources too. As already mentioned at the past big cat AfDs that resulted in delete, scientists make physical comparisons of similar species all the time, but that generally does not contribute to notability. This one is no different. Instead, defining features of a species go to their respective articles, or else we have articles like Panthera that deal with comparative features within the broader group. Everything I'm finding in the article content-wise or source-wise is either not needed, redundant, or having synth issues by just detailing the individual animals rather than truly comparing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is not a synthesis or mere cross-categorisation, and this is notable, and I showed only a few references to demonstrate my case, I have plenty more, both primary and secondary. For example, I already mentioned that Heptner and Sludskiy,[1] Haas et al.,[2] and Vratislav Mazák[3] compared the two in things like size and the length of the skull, and apart from that, and these are only examples of what I have as references:
1) Craig Packer compared them in weight and height, with a note on differences between subspecies.[4]
2) Sunquist and Sunquist compared them in behaviour.[5]
3) Charles Frederick Partington compared them in things like size and behaviour.[6]
4) Yamaguchi et al. compared their cranial capacities, and that is made prominent in the title "Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity".[7]
5) Nyhus and Tilson compared them in cranial capacity and size or weight, with a note on differences between subspecies.[8]
6) Guinness World Records compared them in things like size,[9][10] if this wasn't notable, then why would this topic make it to Guinness? Leo1pard (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of those particularly contribute to notability, and you've been cautioned about that at previous AfDs. My mention of SYNTH was from directly looking at the article and it's sources. Species that have some degree of relation are compared all the time like you see in those sources. What you've established is WP:DUE at existing articles to talk briefly about distinct features of big cats. This is instead becoming a WP:COATRACK to pile on as much information as possible about the animals. This is a case of working the sources too hard to try to make a separate article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fact that this even made it to Guinness shows how notable it is, and these are not the only sources that I have to show how notable this topic is, or that it is not a synthesis or coatrack, and by the way, I wasn't the one who made this a separate article, but decided to respect what another user decided about all these details. Leo1pard (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because: 1) the content is also already provided in the pages on tiger, lion and in the ones on populations, and with exhaustive enough details there already; 2) the fact that scientists compare species does not make a standalone page on such a topic in wikipedia notable or necessary, but imo is redundant; 3) this page indeed has features of an essay as LittleJerry pointed out (though not short enough to be one). -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, because 1) This page has content that is not in pages like Tiger and Lion; 2) It is not just scientists who compared them, even Guinness did that; 3) As pointed out, this topic has been directly mentioned in a number of sources, including these (By the way, I thought you changed your mind about engaging me in an argument, after saying this to me, because of which I decided to avoid engaging you in any argument, until you come here to argue with me?).[9][10][4][6][7][8] Leo1pard (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, simply being mentioned is not enough for notability. Only one of the sources you provided focuses on comparing lions and tigers. The rest only talk about it in a few sentences/paragraphs as part of a greater topic of lions as a species, tigers or of felids. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, more than one source talks specifically about lions and tigers, with comparisons to other animals being left in other passages, do I have to show why that is the case? Leo1pard (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you've already been told, simply talking about them is not enough. Species X vs. Y articles are almost always going to violate WP:NOTDIR policy in terms for cross-categorizations. The push for all these tiger vs. lion vs. cougar, etc. articles is a very WP:UNDUE use of sources for basic information they provide about species. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said to you that this is not a mere cross-categorisation, and I have been careful about the issue of WP:Neutrality when dealing with different sources like these,[9][10][4][6][7][8] this is not basic information about species, I already showed you parts of the details in those sources, and I can give you more to demonstrate what I mean. For example:
1) Brakefield compared them in things like size and shape of the belly, with a note on differences between subspecies.[11]
2) The English Cyclopædia compared them in things like skulls.[12]
3) The Penny Cyclopædia compared them in things like skulls.[13]
I have already listed not just scientific publications, but also cyclopædias and world records to show how notable this topic is, and this is not all that I have. Leo1pard (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're not listening. Find a sizable amount of sources that focus solely on lion and tiger physical comparisons and then we'll talk. Otherwise you're talking in circles. LittleJerry (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do have sources that focus mostly or solely on that, but as per WP:GNG, there should be reliable sources that are independent of the subject (as in, "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it"), so what rule is this? As per WP:GNG, it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, but should have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I have shown why this is covered in independent reliable sources, and thus satisfies WP:GNG, even without putting all reliable references that are independent of the topic, yet talk about it, so please don't give me any more personal rules like that sources shouldn't be independent of the topic. Leo1pard (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now your throwing things at a wall and seeing what sticks. All sources on lions and tigers are independent of them since they are not actually writing about themselves. And you only have one source that exclusively focuses on them. LittleJerry (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have only one source that focuses exclusively on them, and I know that we are supposed to have sources that are independent of the subject, and yet it should be covered in enough of them to show how notable it is, and here, I have shown only a number of sources that deal with them,[9][10][4][6][7][8][11][12][13] independently, directly or otherwise, and not appreciating what valid references may say like this is not acceptable. Leo1pard (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*sign*, I removed that source because it don't belong in the lead paragraphs and there was already sourced information below stating pretty much the same thing. You are hitting below the belt to save your pet project. LittleJerry (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sorry but this is simply not encyclopedic. Tiger vs lion does whatever job there is to do here, better, but frankly we don't need N-squared species-comparison articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How is a WP:Comparison not encyclopaedic, and in the context of Wikipedia, considering that topics should be covered in reliable, independent sources, I have shown these to be applicable to this topic? Leo1pard (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Organisms that are related or share a similar function or ecological niche are always going to compared. That doesn't mean these comparisons should have their own articles. But your logic we can have articles like "Comparisons of polar bears and brown bears" or "Comparisons of bats and birds" or "Comparisons of plants and animals". LittleJerry (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not they do depends on notability, and I have so many reliable or independent sources on this that there should be no doubt as to its notability. Leo1pard (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Tiger vs lion, but only if there is any unique content left over after first deleting the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR material presently bloating this article. I also have concerns that this is actually a non-encyclopediac topic that should not exist under any title. Loopy30 (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What WP:SYNTH or WP:OR? I've gone through the various references like these[9][10][4][6][7][8][11][12][13] and described what they say. For example, if there was a mention on conflicting views about exactly which lions or tigers were bigger than the others, then I noted that down. Leo1pard (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your point already. Don't badger everyone who puts in their two cents. LittleJerry (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, whatever happens here is because of what you have done. If you don't want this type of thing from happening again, then stop doing things like this. I talked to you earlier regarding an issue like this, but you didn't care, and decided to carry on, and now, this is all happening because of what you have done. If you WP:don't like something that has been covered in valid sources, then don't bother with it, don't have anything to do with it. Leo1pard (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Heptner, V. G.; Sludskii, A. A. (1992) [1972]. Mlekopitajuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Moskva: Vysšaia Škola [Mammals of the Soviet Union, Volume II, Part 2]. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation. pp. 83–202. ISBN 90-04-08876-8.
  2. ^ a b Haas, S.K.; Hayssen, V.; Krausman, P.R. (2005). "Panthera leo" (PDF). Mammalian Species. 762: 1–11. doi:10.1644/1545-1410(2005)762[0001:PL]2.0.CO;2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 July 2017.
  3. ^ a b Mazák, V. (1981). "Panthera tigris" (PDF). Mammalian Species. 152 (152): 1–8. doi:10.2307/3504004. JSTOR 3504004. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 March 2012.
  4. ^ a b c d e Packer, C. "Frequently asked questions". University of Minnesota Lion Research Project. Retrieved 28 June 2011.
  5. ^ Sunquist, M.; Sunquist, F. (2002). Wild Cats of the World (1st ed.). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. pp. 7–350. ISBN 978-0-22-677999-7.
  6. ^ a b c d e Charles Frederick Partington (1835). "Felis, the cat tribe". The British cyclopæedia of natural history. Orr & Smith.
  7. ^ a b c d e Yamaguchi, N.; Kitchener, A. C.; Gilissen, E.; MacDonald, D. W. (2009). "Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity". Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 98 (1): 85–93. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01249.x.
  8. ^ a b c d e Ronald Tilson, Philip J. Nyhus (2010), "Tiger morphology", Tigers of the world, Academic Press, ISBN 978-0-8155-1570-8
  9. ^ a b c d e Wood, Gerald L. (1976). The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats. Guinness Superlatives. ISBN 978-0-900424-60-1. Retrieved 2017-10-16.
  10. ^ a b c d e Wood, G. L. (1983). The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats. Sterling Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85112-235-9.
  11. ^ a b c Brakefield, Tom (1993). Big Cats: Kingdom of Might. Voyageur Press. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-89658-329-0.
  12. ^ a b c Charles Knight, ed. (1867). The English Cyclopaedia. Retrieved 2014-08-28.
  13. ^ a b c The Penny Cyclopædia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Vol. 14. Charles Knight and Co. 1846-01-09. Retrieved 2014-08-28.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 23:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I had relisted this on 4 October 2018 but it was reverted with an edit summary stating that "it should not be relisted again", along with a link to an opinion essay (diff). Furthermore, the relisting reversion was performed by a participant in this discussion, which is generally out of process. North America1000 23:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As per Wikipedia:Relisting, articles should not be relisted when a consensus has taken place. There was already a lengthy discussion of a page that was nominated for deletion since the 20th of September, with no clear consensus, and this page had earlier been relisted on the 27th of September, so the best thing now is to close this as "no consensus". Under the rules, "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." Since there already has been substantive debate, I have to decry the repeated act of relisting as WP:Abusive relisting. Leo1pard (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus that the article should either be deleted or merged back to the Lion vs Tiger article. LittleJerry (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also the essay you linked states "Avoid relisting a deletion discussion if a consensus has been firmly and recently established." It names abusive relisting as attempts to get more users to comment in order to reverse a consensus. Northamerica1000 is clearly not doing that. LittleJerry (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion should have long been over since the 30th of September. As per the rules, relisting should not be an excuse to avoid closing the process, and it's been 17 days since you've nominated it for deletion, and over 7 days since it was initially relisted by Northamerica, which allowed the large debate to continue on, so Northamerica should not have relisted it again. It's time for a closure. Leo1pard (talk) 18:05, 7 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Physical_comparison_of_tigers_and_lions_(1st_nomination)&oldid=915709593"