Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush (video gaming)


 * 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!   ·  &#9993;  14:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Rush (video gaming)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

mainly consists of a bunch of unsourced statements, full of possible WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Prisencolin (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 25 August 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 August 25.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 01:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Merge into Glossary of video game terms.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Neutral – Looks much better now. Not sure yet. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Google Books provides a good number of further sources, which include further commentary and analysis of the tactic on players. ; one of them is a scholarly source that briefly explores its etymology. 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)
 * 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)

 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)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  20:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.  A  Train talk 11:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  A  Train talk 11:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think of just merging this article into two items on the Glossary of video game terminology? ~ Mable ( chat ) 12:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.