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. No consensus to delete, however discussion should continue on the talk page about potentially renaming and refocusing the article solely on the topic of
Zerg rush. ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉ 14:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. The subject itself is inherently notable, which means it should have an article. In general, if an article is in a poor state, but the subject itself is inherently notable, then the proper actions are cleanup, improvement, and addition of references, not deletion, which is counterproductive as it just means the article will later have to be restarted from scratch. —
Lowellian (
reply) 03:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
There may be more sources, but the only two currently on the page discuss "alpha strike", which doesn't seem to be the exact same as "rushing".--
Prisencolin (
talk) 19:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Glossary of video game terms as "Alpha Strike" and "Rush". I just don't know where to find sources for this topic, but as long as there aren't any in the article, there isn't enough content to keep it as a separate article. There's nothing to work with. ~
Mable (
chat) 10:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Neutral – Looks much better now. Not sure yet. ~
Mable (
chat) 09:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge. I always rather see a good article, than a selection of poorly sourced stubs.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. I distinclty remember it being widely used in the context of
Starcraft, primarily associated with the
Zerg race;
searches of the term in relation to that game should provide some
useful reliable sources. "Zerg rush" seems to be a popular thing, in fact the term is so significant that Google dedicated it an
easter egg (look at
this video if you don't have javascript enabled).
Diego (
talk) 20:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I do see more news articles mentioning the strategy now, but very few seem to go into any depth about it. The Wall Street Journal happens to give a dictionary definition, while summaries of high-level matches may make use of the word.
PC Gamer mentioned it but didn't talk about it, while
The Inquisitor indirectly does say something about the tactic, but drawing a conclusion from it would basically be original research on the editor's part. I'd still rather see this merged into the glossary and trimmed from its original research. If we find better sources, we can always apply them there, and it will always be possible to spin the article out again lateron. ~
Mable (
chat) 09:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Google Books provides a good number of further sources, which include further commentary and analysis of the tactic on players.
[1][2][3][4][5]; one of them is a scholarly source that briefly explores its etymology
[6]. None of that commentary fits in the VG glossary list article, which contains a very small blurb of text for each entry.
Diego (
talk) 10:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I've added them to the article at relevant points, I think that should solve the concerns about sourcing and notability.
Diego (
talk) 10:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. This article seems really problematic to me and I offer my condolences in advance to the admin who closes this debate. First of all, the article conflates the terms "alpha strike" and "rush"; I can see where the logic lies in that, but none of the cited references make this correlation, so that appears to be
original research. Secondly, most of the sources are talking specifically about "Zerg rush", which is a term from the game Starcraft that bled through into wider nerd culture. I think there's an argument to be made for having a
Zerg rush article (which exists as a redirect to the article in question as of now) but not the reverse. If this article is kept, the "alpha strike" content needs to be excised and moved somewhere else.
ATraintalk 11:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
That is an argument for a move, right? If you delete this one, there will be no content for an article at
Zerg rush. If you agree that there's a notable topic here, its limits and proper title can be discussed at the article Talk.
Diego (
talk) 19:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Sorry -- I didn't make my position very clear. I think the article ought to be deleted. If the article is kept then the article should be moved to
Zerg rush, for which I think there is a slightly better argument. I'm not convinced that zerg rush merits an article of its own, but I could be persuaded.
ATraintalk 11:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The concept of Zerg rush clearly passes the GNG, with multiple independent coverage. What makes you think that the content referring to Zerg rush should be deleted?
Diego (
talk) 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I have difficulty believing an article on Zerg rush could be more than two paragraphs long, though I would love to be proven wrong. ~
Mable (
chat) 20:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
There are already four well-referenced paragraphs about the Zerg rush in the article now, not counting the part about alpha strike.
Diego (
talk) 05:58, 12 September 2016 (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.
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. No consensus to delete, however discussion should continue on the talk page about potentially renaming and refocusing the article solely on the topic of
Zerg rush. ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉ 14:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. The subject itself is inherently notable, which means it should have an article. In general, if an article is in a poor state, but the subject itself is inherently notable, then the proper actions are cleanup, improvement, and addition of references, not deletion, which is counterproductive as it just means the article will later have to be restarted from scratch. —
Lowellian (
reply) 03:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
There may be more sources, but the only two currently on the page discuss "alpha strike", which doesn't seem to be the exact same as "rushing".--
Prisencolin (
talk) 19:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Glossary of video game terms as "Alpha Strike" and "Rush". I just don't know where to find sources for this topic, but as long as there aren't any in the article, there isn't enough content to keep it as a separate article. There's nothing to work with. ~
Mable (
chat) 10:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Neutral – Looks much better now. Not sure yet. ~
Mable (
chat) 09:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge. I always rather see a good article, than a selection of poorly sourced stubs.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. I distinclty remember it being widely used in the context of
Starcraft, primarily associated with the
Zerg race;
searches of the term in relation to that game should provide some
useful reliable sources. "Zerg rush" seems to be a popular thing, in fact the term is so significant that Google dedicated it an
easter egg (look at
this video if you don't have javascript enabled).
Diego (
talk) 20:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I do see more news articles mentioning the strategy now, but very few seem to go into any depth about it. The Wall Street Journal happens to give a dictionary definition, while summaries of high-level matches may make use of the word.
PC Gamer mentioned it but didn't talk about it, while
The Inquisitor indirectly does say something about the tactic, but drawing a conclusion from it would basically be original research on the editor's part. I'd still rather see this merged into the glossary and trimmed from its original research. If we find better sources, we can always apply them there, and it will always be possible to spin the article out again lateron. ~
Mable (
chat) 09:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Google Books provides a good number of further sources, which include further commentary and analysis of the tactic on players.
[1][2][3][4][5]; one of them is a scholarly source that briefly explores its etymology
[6]. None of that commentary fits in the VG glossary list article, which contains a very small blurb of text for each entry.
Diego (
talk) 10:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I've added them to the article at relevant points, I think that should solve the concerns about sourcing and notability.
Diego (
talk) 10:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. This article seems really problematic to me and I offer my condolences in advance to the admin who closes this debate. First of all, the article conflates the terms "alpha strike" and "rush"; I can see where the logic lies in that, but none of the cited references make this correlation, so that appears to be
original research. Secondly, most of the sources are talking specifically about "Zerg rush", which is a term from the game Starcraft that bled through into wider nerd culture. I think there's an argument to be made for having a
Zerg rush article (which exists as a redirect to the article in question as of now) but not the reverse. If this article is kept, the "alpha strike" content needs to be excised and moved somewhere else.
ATraintalk 11:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
That is an argument for a move, right? If you delete this one, there will be no content for an article at
Zerg rush. If you agree that there's a notable topic here, its limits and proper title can be discussed at the article Talk.
Diego (
talk) 19:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Sorry -- I didn't make my position very clear. I think the article ought to be deleted. If the article is kept then the article should be moved to
Zerg rush, for which I think there is a slightly better argument. I'm not convinced that zerg rush merits an article of its own, but I could be persuaded.
ATraintalk 11:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The concept of Zerg rush clearly passes the GNG, with multiple independent coverage. What makes you think that the content referring to Zerg rush should be deleted?
Diego (
talk) 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I have difficulty believing an article on Zerg rush could be more than two paragraphs long, though I would love to be proven wrong. ~
Mable (
chat) 20:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
There are already four well-referenced paragraphs about the Zerg rush in the article now, not counting the part about alpha strike.
Diego (
talk) 05:58, 12 September 2016 (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.