Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Empires III military units


 * 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. Mango juice talk 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Age of Empires III military units
Wikipedia is not a game guide. This page provides a list of all the units in Age of Empires III and gives information on which units are effective against other units. This makes it a clear violation of WP:NOT. Was successfully prodded at some point but was recreated recently. Indrian 05:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki if one of the gaming wikis wants it, else delete per nom. MER-C 08:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki, possibly to Egamia, or another similar. Ck l o stsw o rd|queta!|Suggestions? 09:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, aids understanding of the game, thus encylopedic. Kappa 01:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that you have some wapred definition of game guide that does not include articles like this, but by the logic you just used above, all video game guides and walkthorughs belong as they aid in understanding the game. The question therefore is, how can you possibly reconcile your above statement with established wikipedia policy prohibiting walkthroughs and game guides? Indrian 02:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Walkthroughs are "how-tos" and do not belong. There is no policy against game guides except to the extent they are instructional rather than encylopedic. Kappa 02:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That does not answer the question thought. A walkthrough also aids understanding the game, and above you said that anything that aids in understanding the game is encyclopedic.  I do not think you are deliberately contradicting yourself, but I do think your initial comment was a bit careless. Indrian 03:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - supremely encyclopedic article vital to the Wikipedia project-ForbiddenWord 18:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep- I would not say supremely encyclopedic but it is a well written list (as well as lists can be) and it does add under standing to the game. Also it keeps these units from being spelled out on the game's main article thus keeping another more important article concise. Yeah i'd keep itTrey 18:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It aids in understanding of the game by telling the user what units are effective against which other units. This is by definition a game guide in violation of WP:NOT.  Neither your arguement or any of the other keep arguements give one single reason how this conforms to policy.  Being a well-written list is not grounds to keep an article that violates policy for another reason. Indrian 19:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not try to argue that it does not violate WP:NOT i simply stated that this list keeps this information out of another article that is pretty well written if not a tad bloated. So by deleting it your asking for this to be added to the main Age of Empires article thus making a decent and notable article much worse. but thats just my thoughtsTrey 19:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, by deleting I am saying that this information does not belong at all. If I though the information belonged on the main game page, I would be calling for a merge, not a delete.  This information does not belong on the main game page any more than it belongs on a separate page.  Also, and please do correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that you just admitted that this article violates policy and voted keep anyway.  If that is your position (and like I said, I may be confused), then I would suggest that your vote should be discounted, or at the very least treated with skepticism by the closing admin. Indrian 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that in these discussions, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and that other users should not attempt to discredit them. If Trey believes that it should be kept, that is up to him. Also, it should be noted that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy states that the Rules should not be followed to the letter, if they are followed in spirit. If some users believe that keeping this article follows the 'spirit' of 'WP is not,' than that is their choice. No attempts at 'conversion' should be made. Ck l o stsw o rd|queta!|Suggestions? 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a game guide.  Eluchil404 01:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 01:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Whispering(talk/c) 14:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)