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 Keep. NawlinWiki 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zerg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This overlong article about fictional race has no independent references to demonstrate notability per WP:Fiction and as a result reads like a WP:POV fork from the computer game Starcraft, from which it is featured. --Gavin Collins 09:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to StarCraft. Notability is the issue here, not WP:POV. MartinDK 11:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - You can't delete Zerg! I don't even like the game but I know a noteable topic when I see it! From our own article on Rush (computer and video games)

  In real-time strategy (RTS) and team-based first-person shooter (FPS) computer games, a rush is a fast attack at the beginning of the game. In this context, it is also known as swarming, goblin tactics or Zerging,

• Just because an article does not have any references is no reason to delete it - if sources cannot be found, then yes it can be put up for deletion... Don't put it for an AfD - Find Some Sources for it instead! Also, Starcraft is too big as it is. Leave the article where it stands. - Fosnez 11:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not inherited. Also, it is written from an in-universe perspective which is bad. Anyone can nominate an article for deletion, you can't tell someone that they should find sources instead. The onus is on the creators of the article to state their sources and assert notability per the appropriate guideline. Also, I said Redirect not merge. There is nothing of value to merge so the size of the main article doesn't matter. MartinDK 11:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment anyone can find sources for an article - thats the point of wikipedia. I agree the the article needs a rewrite - but again I will say it... rewrite it! don't delete it.. from what I can see from a lot of these deletions (and I'm not attaching you here Gavin or MartinDK) they are from editors that either don't have the time or don't care enough about the subject to fix it. If you don't have enough time to fix it then you shouldn't have enough time to delete it! Here some basic fact that I have thrown together:

      Number of article edits: approximately 500 non trival

      Number of link to Zerg: about 40 (not including user or redirects)

      Number of google hits: almost 1,500,000

      Number of Google Scholar hits for zerg starcraft: about 20 - some look quite interesting, but you have to pay for them. - Fosnez 11:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • One final comment - WP:FICTION says that articles should try to be kept, otherwise merged, or transwikied and finially put up for deletion if non of the above can be done. Having looked through the edit history, I can't see a request for a merge? Fosnez 12:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect / merge content The Zerg are kind of popular in modern (mostly internet) culture. However, they don't need an article. I suggest enhancing the StarCraft article with all relevant information found here. Or, seing as other races from the game have an article, create a page Species in StarCraft (or similar) and collect the information on the different races there. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment looking at the 3 entries in Category:Blizzard_Entertainment_characters; there is no conformity on how the other 2 Articles handle this sort of thing. One goes with a "List of..." the other with seperate Articles. Making a "Formal Decision" on this article could have a future effect on 1 of the other 2 Articles. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (use page names to Redirect to StarCraft if deleted): WP:FICTION states that all other options should be exhausted before deletion. All other options have not been exhausted. As with the Protoss, and the Terrans I have rewrites on the way. I was going to work on locations and mapping next, but these nominations have pushed species up the priorities list. If I didn't have any rewrites planned, I'd join in supporting deleting this - the current version is awfully in-universe and lacks any real-world information. However, just like I said in the Protoss AfD, deletion of this version of this article doesn't really matter to me - the rewrites will be completely different, written from an out-of-universe perspective with minimal plot details (the Characters of StarCraft article and the main game articles do that sufficiently) and contain information on development, notable gameplay aspects, critical reception, cultural impact all referenced from reliable sources. When moved out, they will comply with notability guidelines and so forth, so it doesn't really matter what happens to this version of the article. Certainly do not merge into StarCraft in the meantime - that will probably make a mess of the article, damaging it's FA status. -- Sabre 13:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NOTINHERITED Percy Snoodle 14:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - WP:NOTINHERITED also tells us that the creation of sub-articles, while not implying an "inherited notability" per se, can be acceptable for practical reasons. As the whole game is constructed around three different races and also game reviews seem to look at them in turn, this would IMO be such a case.--Tikiwont 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Starcraft universe is massively popular, and an article on one of it's key components isn't cruft and it is worthwhile. But like the Protoss article it needs some work. JMalky 16:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Now this is just getting silly. Artw 17:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Zerg aren't notable? I've never played the game, have no interest in playing the game, am not a big gamer, and yet I still know all about them just from general conversation with friends. Bryan Derksen 23:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the entire article is in game content with no real outside notability established....this is game guide level content Corpx 04:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Finding references to substantiate this article is not difficult at all. A much more effective use of time would be to apply some copy editing and citations to the article and improve the content that way. dr.ef.tymac 10:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per User:Corpx - fchd 19:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - confident it can be rewritten into proper form. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is notable enough. Its close association with StarCraft makes it plenty notable enough for inclusion. Captain panda 02:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not really. WP:NOTINHERITED. None of these keep votes have anything to do with policy or guidelines. I don't mean to bite you but please try to refer to something we can actually discuss (policy, guidelines) rather than spam the AfD with WP:ILIKEIT votes. MartinDK 06:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responce From WP:NOTINHERITED Notability of a parent entity does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That's not to say that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia and also, Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes [and] often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation. Combining all the "non noteable" articles relating to starcraft into one would make it an extreamly long and cumberson article. Now for some policy, which directly relates to this. If any rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it. - - Fosnez 07:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You want to wikilawyer your way out of WP:NOTINHERITED and then invoke WP:IAR to stop all further debate? That's it. I'm out of here. Good luck with your crap article. And oh yes... that's all it will ever be. MartinDK 07:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment So now I can't even quote policy to keep this article? Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.... Fosnez 07:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Care to explain why you are vote stacking ? MartinDK 08:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment - Well if you had cared to read the project page you would understand what that is all about. Also it appears this is not the first time you've thrown a tantrum like this. Also, I don't appreciate being called a "inclusionist vote-stacking 14 year old asshole", I presume that was aimed at me considering it was made just after you above comment?. - Fosnez 08:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • General comment I strongly urge everyone to read the AfD that Michel refers to and not least the DRV that followed. Do you have anything to add to this AfD that even remotely relates to policy or are you just here to prove me right.? MartinDK 08:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Specific comment - So after a personal attack and a false accusation against me you are attempting to take the higher moral ground? Also, who is Michel? Fosnez 09:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment Michel is the name of the editor whose comment on my talk page you linked to above. I would have thought you read it before linking to it here. I'm not attempting anything. I'm repeating my previous argument. Can you cite policy, other than WP:IAR? Can you cite a guideline that would allow this article to exist? Or are you simply here to disrupt the process? MartinDK 09:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Comment I don't think it is me who is disrupting the process "That's it. I'm out of here. Good luck with your crap article. And oh yes... that's all it will ever be" Also, the last time I quoted policy you accused me of "wikilawyering", so am I allowed to do it now or not? - Fosnez 09:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Comment All you need to do to shut me up is show me that this meets WP:N and is sourced according to WP:V and WP:RS without trying to argue your way around the requirements which are quite clear. That's it, that's all it takes. MartinDK 09:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Comment While you have been here abusing me, have you bothered to check the article itself? or actually read any of my above posts? No? Well then I would refer you to the numbers that I have quoted above and to the article itself, there are sources now. Also, would you care to quote the policy were I have the responsibility to shut you up? I could quote a few back do you like Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility, both of which you have violated in this thread, and (after reviewing your edit history) many times before. Fosnez 09:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Comment I'll take that as a no then. See you when this is going to deletion review. MartinDK 09:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Comment Hold on their buddy! So are you saying now that you are going to ignore the outcome of this AfD even before the outcome has been decided? And then lodge a deletion review based on your own, preformed opnion? It sounds like you don't have a very Neutral point of view on this subject or perhaps you just Don't Like it? - Fosnez 10:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:FICTION states that "non-notable information should be deleted only when all other options have been exhausted". All other options have not been exhausted, a full rewrite is underway in sandbox that will address the notability, in-universe style and "game guide"-like information (although I fail to see how it can be "game guide" when it doesn't mention anything about gameplay). WP:RUBBISH states that "just because the current article is poor does not necessarily mean that the subject is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia". WP:UGH states "arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopaedic should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects". Right now though, I'm thinking that the final paragraph of WP:RUBBISH may be a good reason for deletion, particularly due to the afore mentioned rewrite: "Sometimes the current article is so poor that deleting the whole article and history, and starting from scratch is the best option." -- Sabre 10:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per Protoss, it is inappropriate to view this article purely from fiction guidelines, as the significance of Zerg is not primarily as an element of the StarCraft fiction but as an actual element of StarCraft gameplay. This is especially significant given the extensive popularity of competitive StarCraft. The article does badly need a rewrite. Note additionally that the term “Zerg” has sufficient notability in this space to be applied to things quite separate from StarCraft as well. taion 11:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pare down, then merge and redirect to Starcraft spazure (contribs) (review) 08:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Are you kidding? Sounds like a bad faith nomination. 86.1.200.103 01:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant article for the starcraft universe because it potrays and describes a faction and helps clarify the plotline on the starcraft page. Incase it gets deleted I transwikied sections of the page to the Encyclopedia Gamia. --Cs california 05:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, based on the assertion that "Zerg" has become a common synonym in gaming circles for "canon fodder". This in itself renders any arguments based on WP:NOTINHERITED (whatever that string of upper-case letters is supposed to mean) moot. While I'd like to see citations provided for this usage, I think Wikipedia will survive if we keep this article & give people some time to provide those cites. -- llywrch 07:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Use of "Zerg" in reliable sources. Several [1] [2] [3] articles by scholars, etc. Clearly notable outside the in universe context. User:Krator (t c) 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So Zerg = cannon fodder. So what? Besides that one factoid, nothing else in this article is sourceable. This is just typical fancruft: unreferenced, excessive plot detail, massively in-universe. Delete and do not merge in Starcraft or anywhere else. --Phirazo 23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RUBBISH "However, because the current article is poor does not necessarily mean that the subject is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia." As with Protoss, the significance of Zerg as a fictional race is debatable. The significance of Zerg in StarCraft gameplay is not. This article is not "History of the Zerg". This article talks about the Zerg as a whole. Refer to the discussion and the conclusion reached in the Protoss AfD; this is no different. taion 00:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This fictional race is non-notable outside of Starcraft and gaming circles. The Protoss AfD ended with no consensus, so there weren't any conclusions reached there. In the end, all that can be attributed to reliable sources is "Zerg = cannon fodder". This is a worth a sentence in StarCraft, not an entire article of plot summaries and cruft. This is not a "surmountable problem". Unreferenced material must be attributable to reliable sources, or it must go. --Phirazo 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're aware that StarCraft is televised in Korea, right? The number of people who are actually interested in StarCraft and the various races is quite large. You're making a statement analogous to saying that the Sicilian Defense is not notable outside of chess circles. True, but irrelevant. There should not be an entire article of plot summaries and cruft, you're right; but this is not all there is this topic. Again, note WP:RUBBISH. I'm not arguing that I like how the article stands presently. Your apparent assumption, however, that this article is not missing large chunks on much more notable topics than are presently covered is, well, wrong. taion 01:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So you are arguing that this article could be useful as game guide material? The only future I see for this article is a game guide or a plot summary, which is unfixable rubbish. If there are usable Korean sources, show them, or better yet, integrate them in the article. The sources given are insufficient for an encyclopedic article, and this article does not inherit notability from StarCraft. Yes, Korea loves StarCraft, but that isn't an excuse for unverifiable articles. --Phirazo 16:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on now. Taion's been around for a long time, he knows his way around, there's no reason to assume that he's making such fundamental errors and no way that it helps this discussion. In fact, are you all right over there? You've been testy and snappish, knowing when to take a breather is not one of our strong points on the whole, and those things tend to feed themselves. This is not a ploy to discredit your judgement or play to the admins, that's way too difficult anyway, I'm concerned because an editor blew his top just above and by the time I came to talk to him he'd scrambled his password and logged out.
  Taion is free to hit me with a fish if I'm wrong, but he's definitely not arguing that (fill in later). If you need more sources, note from the link below that a single particular player received multiple articles in major Korean newspapers. Organizing an effort with WikiProject Korea should be more doable when the article is not in immediate danger. --Kizor 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An addendum: I don't know if "chess cruft" is a term in usage on Wikipedia, but Sicilian Defence would certainly qualify. That article is horrible. --Phirazo 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I recognize that there is a distinct risk of these articles devolving to game guide material, which is undesirable. I would optimally like the article to look like something of an equivalent of shortstop or first baseman, which give adequate descriptions of the underlying things without being guides. Perhaps for a closer analogy, the article on the Queen's Gambit gives a capsule description of the opening but also does not serve as a guide. This seems pretty analogous to doing things like covering basics like ultralisk + zergling combos or mutalisk tech without adding irrelevant levels of detail that would turn the article into a guide. The plot summary should be cut down to a paragraph or two at most, with the rest of the article giving an appropriate description of gameplay (but specifically not a guide) and a reference to prominent Zerg players and games. StarCraft is a bit unique in this space, yes, as it's really the only video game that has reached this level of popularity and professional development. However, if you're so unimpressed by Sicilian Defense and similar articles, I suggest putting them up for AfD as well. taion 05:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm convinced by the arguments in here, at Protoss and at Park Jung Suk about Starcraft's peculiar status as South Korea's unofficial national sport and the Zerg's status as a vital part. Starcraft uses the olympic stadium. It has not only professional players, but a professional league - and each player is associated with a particular race. Irrespective of the merits of the article as coverage of fiction, it has merit as coverage of a fundamental of unexpectedly major English-lacks-a-term-for-non-athletic-sport, making it not as much a matter for the current WP:FICT (which by the way has already exasperated its primary author, as it's not supposed to be used this way) and more like Out (baseball). No, I would never advocate articles about - say - Starcraft tactics or gambits, but those are both definite minutiae despite the significance of the main game, useless for our coverage, and unformalized concepts (unlike the Sicilian Defense). The Zerg are neither.
  I know it's weird, but considering that I'm writing to you instantly from what is for most the other side of the planet, and on the largest encyclopedia in human history that's been built entirely by amateur volunteers, we've probably gone past weird. --Kizor 05:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per the above reasonings. • Lawrence Cohen 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, & I'm kind of inclined to agree with the notion that this vibes "bad faith" nom. --mordicai. 21:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this article should be kept because though it is about a fictional race, that race is from a wildly popular game. It has a huge cult following and as with all games of that magnitude it has a back story. This page is a comilation of history, strategy and other useful and interesting things on that race, if you feel the need to delete this page dozens of others would have to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan Joe (talk • contribs) 04:55, 11 September 2007 (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.