Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger blood


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 03:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Tiger blood

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Created as a hoax (if you don't know what this is about, google Charlie Sheen Tiger Blood) Yaksar (let's chat) 04:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It is indeed a hoax. This page can be seen linked as a joke on Reddit, in fact.     Sophus Bie  (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G3 (hoax). So tagged.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 06:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Definite hoax. Would suggest disciplining creating user as well. LiteralKa (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep . It may have been created as a hoax but tiger blood is indeed used in traditional medicine. There is no hoax content in the current text of the article, and speedy G3 certainly does not apply. Thparkth (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Changing to neutral. Persuaded by TheFreeloader, I have no opinion on whether the topic justifies a separate article - but I am certain it is not a G3 candidate. Thparkth (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 *  Keep Merge/redirect. Originally it was created with some Charlie Sheen nonsense, but that bit is gone now and what's left has been rewritten - and tiger blood really is part of traditional Chinese medicine. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As per the two comments below, I don't think we can justify a standalone article - I support merge, possibly with Traditional Chinese medicine, and redirect
 * Delete or make into a redirect to tiger. While tiger blood may have some role in traditional Asian medicine, it has not been established that that role is significant enough for this subject to warrant its own article. I think, until that can be done, this topic should be discussed in the section on traditional Asian medicine in the tiger article.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect, per TheFreeLoader. Even 'mainstream' small-parts-of-big-animals, like rhinoceros horn, don't get separate articles. gnfnrf (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect I badly want to see this redirected to Charlie Sheen, but perhaps Tiger is a more fitting target. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this has the potential to become a notable meme–so I have no prejudice against recreation if it does. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Charlie Sheen. If y'all take a look at the very first version of this article, just started, it's clear that the intent of the article was not to educate about a valid aspect of Chinese traditional medicine, however esoteric, but rather to write a Wikipedia piece about Charlie Sheen's recent bizarre phrase about himself having "tiger blood." In short, the entire intent of the article was specious. If there's a need for discussion of this topic in Chinese medicine, or the destruction of rare wildlife to create such a product, this is most certainly not the place for it. Carrite (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - the speedy was rejected. I'm in favor of a redirect, but redirecting to Tiger on account that Charlie Sheen says he is infused with it is not logical. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 05:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The justification for redirecting/merging to tiger is that tiger blood is a minor element of traditional Asian medicine, and we even have a citation for it. Charlie Sheen is a red herring. gnfnrf (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, indeed. Good point. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this should be redirected, it should be done on the basis of what most people over the longer term will be expecting "Tiger blood" to be about - will people expect it to be about tigers or about Charlie Sheen? Surely the former is of much wider global significance than a one-off utterance by an American movie star? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know, this Tiger Blood obsession of Charlie Sheen's is getting mentioned quite a bit, at least in the U.S. I will agree that it is too early to redirect "Winning" to Mr. Sheen, however. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The incident seems to be pretty much unheard of here in the UK (and I'd guess anywhere else outside the US) - that TV show doesn't appear to be much of a hit here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, just found this, which talks about his being fired and quotes a sentence with the word "TigerBlood" in it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
 * My latest google news search got 2,827 hits for "tiger blood" ("tigerblood" got about 500), but you're right-they're almost all American (but a few Canadian!) outlets. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Where this could potentially redirect to is an interesting topic. Tiger blood use in chinese medicine appears to be scant and trivial, so I would oppose that. A redirect to Tiger would be logical, but then again seems wholly unnecessary; as dumb as it seems, I think Charlie Sheen may be the most logical redirect location if a redirect is made. I can't believe I'm saying this, but it does seem to make sense. In the end, the encyclopedia is for the readers, and, at least for now, most of the people searching for "tiger blood" are probably doing so because of Charlie Sheen. But then again, I think an outright deletion makes the most sense, and I also would completely understand if somewhat disagrees with my logic behind what the best redirect would be.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep/Redirect I really think that deletion just is not the answer. Redirect to Charlie Sheen while it is still current (however long that will be) or even Tiger, but either way Tiger Blood is all too relevant in this day in age for deletion.  You're either with me or you're with the trolls on this one.--fatmandan420 (let's chat) 01:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:AGF and please don't call people who disagree with you "trolls" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For those who haven't been following every second of Charlie Sheen's life this week, Fatmandan's !vote above is quoting Sheen's new tagline: “You’re either in Sheen’s korner or with the trolls!” in his above vote: . Qrsdogg (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies then - please allow me to withdraw my admonition and replace it with a smiley - [[Image:Smile.png|16px]] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep; this does seem encyclopedic on its own. No reason we can't have a little disambiguation notice at the top sending people to Charlie Sheen, at least for awhile (the long-term staying power of Charlie Sheen memes remains to be seen). Kansan (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename and expand A minor ingredient in "Traditional Chinese medicine" does not merit an article of its own, but has some encyclopedic merit. While not strictly applicable, the principle behind WP:1E should be followed. By the time this discussion closes, this brief notoriety may well be forgotten. There's enough behind the article that it should be kept in the context of the bigger picture, but renamed "Tigers and traditional Chinese medicine" or something like that and discuss all body parts/components and the impact of bone (not blood) on endangerment. If done, it should be a "See also" for Traditional Chinese medicine.Novangelis (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's really nothing to expand. There's one source that makes a passing mention of tiger blood in medicine, but it is certainly not "widely" or significantly used. The other source seems to just be there to strengthen the hoax, and has absolutely no mentions of blood in medicine at all. Turns out both sources do address blood, although I still stand by the fact that they are incredibly passing mentions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read the sources more carefully. I added both of them to the article, and I was not involved in the original hoax - in fact, I don't know who Charlie Sheen is (and I'm quite happy in my ignorance). This source says that tiger blood is claimed to "build up the constitution and strengthen the willpower". This source repeats that claim, and references 2,000 year-old-texts for the belief. Neither is intended in any way to "strengthen the hoax" and both explicitly mention tiger blood. Thparkth (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I echo what Thparkth just said. The article has changed significantly since its initial creation, so any claim that this is a hoax needs to be claimed because it is now reliably sourced. Kansan (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason to expand would be to focus on the major ingredients (mostly bone) and their impact on wildlife and to bring the minor role of blood into context. Just about anything that could be said about the blood is already written, and will never stand as an article on its own, but the temporal discussion of tiger blood revealed a previously under-explored (see Tiger, Tiger in Chinese culture) topic which merits encyclopedic inclusion. The first source in the article is enough for a bare bones (no pun intended) expansion and there are other sources available. It might be merged into "Traditional Chinese medicine" or another article after expansion. Without expansion, merging would give blood undue weight.Novangelis (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete - As per nomination. --Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Speedy delete as joke, redirect to Tiger. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked Sockpuppet. See Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Once again I am dismayed to find some flavor-of-the-week from the cable media's tabloid-like obsessions is a actual wikipedia article. A dumb charlie sheenism cannot be salvaged into a legitimate topic.  Some minor twaddle about traditional medicine can't rescue this term from its unfortunately eternal meme associations. Tarc (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, we shouldn't even acknowledge Charlie's stupidity. Redirect to Tiger is appropriate. -- Y not? 16:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect as noted directly above - this doesn't need to be its own article. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:48, 9 March 2011 (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.