Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bear versus bull


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Bear versus bull

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is totally original research. No sources discuss both actual bears and actual bulls together, except briefly, in passing. Though the article is pretty coy and doesn't actually say it, it's not about bulls or bears, but the stock market. There's already an article about stock market bulls and bears Market trends, but even that is pretty iffy. The situation is analogous to having an article entitled "Pluto versus Uranus" with some text just about the former planet Pluto, some text just about Uranus, but the main topics being about a comic book character and your rectum. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 18.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 03:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a Biological topic, with sources
 * What I created is the Biological topic of the bear versus the bull, for which there are sources, not necessarily the Economical concept of the bear versus the bull, similar to that of "Tiger versus lion," so kindly do not delete it.


 * For example, these sources show that bears may kill cattle or Bovini-bovinae for food, therefore, come into confrontation with bulls (in this sense, male cattle or Bovini-bovinae).


 * Leo1pard (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: User:Leo1pard, I have reformatted your comment because AFDs do not transclude correctly to the main AFD page when using sections. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Some bull facts in parallel with some bear facts. WP:SYNTH (and WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH) applies to the article, and WP:BUTITSTRUE to Leopard1's argument. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I looked at the sources and they didn't seem to be about bear vs bull. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: hard to see what the page is for. Bear and Bull markets in economics are a thing, but why would we need a page comparing bull and a bear? I don't understand. I guess it is similar to Apples and oranges, but there the emphasis is on the derivation of the phrase and sources that have compared them. I can't see that we can have pages that actually compare items in common phrases because that'd be silly. JMWt (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a very good analogy. Yes it would resemble someone then creating an article that compared these two fruits on the basis of their nutrients, as if that were somehow a coherent thing to be explored. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is obviously not the case, if you look at the references now. Leo1pard (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * References for "Bear versus bull"

Leo1pard (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete a completely useless juxtaposition of two animals, trying to synthesize... something. It isn't gibberish but as a concept for an article, it's of no practical use to anyone, from what I can see, other than perhaps the author. It's obviously inspired by his more successful Atlas the Barbary lion versus the Bengal tiger of Simla, which is about some mythic animal contest. Here, he takes the bear/bull stock market metaphor to offer readers a tale of the tape, as it were. I wonder if he plans to do this for every time two animals are mentioned in an expression? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See also his related Category:Animal versus animal. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The success of the article Atlas the Barbary lion versus the Bengal tiger of Simla may have inspired me, but Bear versus bull is inspired more by the (lengthy) article Tiger versus lion, than by Atlas the Barbary lion versus the Bengal tiger of Simla, which itself was inspired by the former. Leo1pard (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Leo1pard (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Reference of a fight between a bear and a bull


 * Delete Seems like an unneeded intersection: why not Ostrich vs. Emu or Llama vs. Goat? I'm also concerned that the sources seem to talk about bulls or bears and this article is a synthesis. If these two animals were often confused with each other, than an article running through the different taxonomy would be fine. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 *  Collection of records of fights between bears and bulls 
 * : Leo1pard (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination is quite mistaken. Bull/bear fights were a popular spectator sport in California and there are numerous sources which document this in detail.  For example, see Bear-and-Bull Fights.  The topic therefore passes the WP:GNG and the page should not be deleted per our editing policy, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your reasoning; bear and bull fights existed therefore it is reasonable to have a page comparing relatively random features of those two animals? Are you saying that Apples and oranges should be kept if it contained only a description of each of the fruits? Surely the whole point of this page should be that it is a phrase reflecting a spectator sport in parts of California.  The actual comparison is a surely fairly obviously WP:OR - so the best you are arguing is that the page should be WP:TNT and started over to reflect those things rather than trying to compare physical features. JMWt (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, Andrew, then it seems to me then Bear_versus_bull is the article. The rest, with all the taxonomy (if that's the right word) about each species individually belongs on their main articles. Unless someone is willing to repurpose the article about this historic bloodsport, then I agree with JMWt that WP:TNT applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you say something similar to the author of Tiger versus lion? Leo1pard (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the article that's been tagged as in need of attention since 2014? Yes I probably would say something similar to that distinguished author, whoever he might be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I restructured it. Leo1pard (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reply Please take a look at the articles in the Category:Blood sports tree. I think those might offer a better format for covering animal fighting in California rather than the Animal 1 vs. Animal 2 model. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But would you say that for the article Tiger versus lion, which is also more than about organized fights between the mentioned animals? Leo1pard (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, Tiger versus lion is a more notable idea for a page, and is better executed than this one because it contains a lot of sources which specifically describe the fight between tiger and lion - whereas you've just compared two different animals as if you are playing top trumps. As I said above, I can accept that organised fights between bear and bull happened - providing you find references you can cite to it, not just to the physical features of both beasts - but this isn't the way to write a page about it. At best, you need to WP:TNT it. JMWt (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well, I started something. Leo1pard (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Absolutely in agreement with JMWt here and Shawn's comment above. If kept, the article should be moved to Bear and bull fights (with a redirect from the converse), with material not directly related to bear and bull fights removed and not re-added (nb: There also appears to be Roman-era bear-bull baiting). If predation of cattle by bears happened to be significant enough, then that would belong under one or more bear articles. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 00:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you say something similar for Tiger versus lion, since it is also more than about fights between mentioned animals? Leo1pard (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. TvL is better structured, but could do with a significant prune and focussing (noting that it was far cleaner, though apparently a magnet for edit warring, in earlier revisions). Such paragraphs as "In Afghanistan, it is possible that lions occurred at least in the southwest and southern parts.[7] Tigers bred at the upper reaches of the Hari Rud or Tedzhen Darya at Herat.[29][7] Tigers were found at a tributary of the Amu Darya called the ‘Pyandzh River’, from where they would invade what is now Tajikistan, and the Geri, Kunduz and Murghab Rivers.[7]" I'd consider WP:COATRACK -- they don't intersect the topic of tigers and lions. Similarly, the page and a half of physiology (expanded from a couple of paragraphs in earlier versions) should be in species articles.
 * In a Bear and bull fights article, one way of structuring things might be along the lines of:
 * * Lede - brief summation of the article focussed on Bear vs bull fights. The current lede is in no way so focussed. Sample from the top of my head -- definitely wildly accurate:
 * "Bear-and-bull fights were a blood sport, normally held between a single bear and one domestic bull. They originated in Rome in 24 AD, and ran until 347 AD when they were ceased by an edict by the Emperor Anonimus. Bear-and-bull fights resumed in modern times in Mexico in the late 18th century, first appearing in the Plaza del Toros in Juarez, and spreading regionally from there. They were imported to California no later than 1849, when an exhibition match was held in...")
 * * History (Rome-> Mexico -> California -> anywhere more modern->last recorded fight) - specific attested bear-vs-bull tactics could go here against locational reports or in its own section, depending on what reads most cleanly.
 * * In nature (selected attested examples only of direct bear and bull/cattle fights - not supposition about what could have occured and that cattle and bears may have been in the same region)
 * * In literature and art (attested examples only dealing with bull vs bear)
 * ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I started restructuring it again. Leo1pard (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per violation of WP:OR, WP:GNG, and the limits of common sense. The main problem with this article is that it discusses an actual conflict between a bear and a bull, whereas the only place where "bear vs. bull" has any notability is in political cartoons (bear market, bull market). The references reflect this: the verification for the claim that "the topic of bear vs. bull is popular" comes from two sources, which, respectively, are "Investopedia" and amazon.com. Other attempts at verification fail miserably; reports of bears attacking bull bison (which are just male bison, not actual bulls) are used as proof of bear vs. bull conflicts, and Native American folk tales are cited as factual sources. This article may also violate WP:FRINGE, since I doubt that instances of bears fighting bulls are broadly supported by any sort of reputable scholarship. As has been stated above, this article is useless. Anyone who wants to compare bears and bulls can look at the separate articles and do so on their own time. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, the book on the popularity of the topic, which I mentioned, does not have to be accessed only on Amazon.com, if you check the details of the reference which I put down in the article. Leo1pard (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right; I went on Google Books and found the information. I must apologize for jumping to conclusions. But two things: first of all, when you reference a book and provide a link, you should make sure that the link provides the information you've cited, not just the name of the book or the fact that the book exists. And secondly: this article still contains quite a bit of irrelevant information. If the verification for the continued existence of this article is that bear-bull fights took place historically, this should be the main point of the article, as this is the only case where "bear vs. bull" appears to be notable. However, in my opinion, this topic still fails general notability, even in the historical sense, as the only place where the issue is discussed is in one highly specialized source (a concise history of one subspecies of brown bear). If you can back up your claims of notability with multiple recent third-party sources (not just sources discussing bears and bulls separately, but discussing them in this context), then WP:GNG will be met. Additionally, it's nonsense to consider a bull to be "any male member of the subfamily bovinae"; for example, is this a bull? (It is a member of the subfamily bovinae.) The term "bull" is used to describe the males of many species, including such varied creatures as whales, but not all "bulls" are bulls. In conclusion, unless this article receives major changes and a large number of reliable sources, I'm afraid it's still "delete" material in my opinion. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 18:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reformatted the article to talk about Bovini-bovinae that are domesticated, or can be so, to make things simpler. Leo1pard (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * More had been added. Leo1pard (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

it is true that one of the references is incorrectly formatted, but it is wrong to say that the link must provide the information cited. There are plenty of references in use on wikipedia which are not fully available and open so the information is not accessible by clicking on a link. These can still be used as reliable sources. JMWt (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the link to remove an unnecessary link to Amazon. But it is still a delete for me. JMWt (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @JMWt: I understand; I was merely pointing out to Leo1pard that the use of clearer citations would make it easier for every editor looking to verify information. In this case, the information was fully available via Google Books; sending the reference there would have been more logical than sending it to Amazon. In any case, I apologize for any misconduct on my part. On a side note: this exchange has nothing to do with this deletion discussion; the next time you have any concerns, please notify me on my talk page. Regards, Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added more. Leo1pard (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.