Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Age of Mythology series (2nd nomination)


 * 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. A difficult one. on the one hand, some serious effort has been put into this page, and it's a shame to see it go. On the other hand, this page is not really appropriate for what is, after all, an encyclopedia. This isn't the first time this type of discussion has taken place (although I think it's the first time the article in question has been so polished), I think this deletion review sums it up best. See also here and the other discussions it links to. There's been a pretty clear consensus over the years that these articles should not be included. I don't think we need a redirect, as it's a rather improbable search term. yandman 09:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Post-close note: History undeleted because of previously and potentially merged content as result of Deletion review/Log/2009 February 18; redirect retained. Chick Bowen 01:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

List of units in the Age of Mythology series
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Largely game guide content with little sourcing other than from fansites and irrelevant mythological research, the latter of which is wholly irrelevant to the context. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the sort of combination article that should be encouraged--it's an example of the way we should do our material of these games. Game guide material, which I agree we don;t want to do, is much more detailed than this--but the only way to understand what a game is is to see this sort of brief summary.DGG (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. This is propped-up game guide material with all the numbers chopped off and stuffed full of impressive-looking references that don't mention the article topic. This is a list of indiscriminate factoids. Some of the factoids may or may not be worth saving to weave into other articles, and that is the only reason to save this from deletion. This is the sort of piecemeal nonsense that should be discouraged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, one of these again. Transwiki is the best way here, one of the Wikias may benefit from having a detailed summary such as this, but its not appropriate for Wikipedia. This is essentially the same sort of information that turns up in a game's instruction manual on the units, combined with quite a bit of original research; an approach better for the fansites than an encyclopedia. -- Sabre (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was transwikied from the last AfD to here. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd support a redirect to Age of Mythology, Nifboy has effectively summed up my views of this list below. -- Sabre (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What's bothering me most is the lack of references in the majority of sections. Isn't it easier to simply link to game guide website instead of attempting a complete duplication? - Mgm|(talk) 11:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Valid use of List article, doesn't really consitute a game guide since it doesn't list stats or how to use the units in their strategical context and per DGG. MLauba (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Virtually the whole article, apart from the weakly-sourced historical info, consists of information such as "Prodromos' are used most effectively against other cavalry." and "The Scylla is a naval myth unit with the ability to grow extra heads through battle.", which entirely pertains to their use in a strategical, game guide context. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — as I said in the previous AFD (also to maintain consistency), the content is explained in a real-world context and not necessarily in a game guide context. However, I wouldn't oppose to a soft redirect to the StrategyWiki page for convenience as well as maintaining preservation of the content (which already is). MuZemike 17:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As AMiB and I have explained above, the real-world context is irrelevant and is merely a rehashing of content that belongs in the respective articles pertaining to the units' real-life counterparts; for example, "During the Roman Imperial age, the Murmillo was a strong class of gladiator.[21]" explains well enough the role of the Murmillo in a historical context, yet it adds nothing to the relevant context, which is the units of AoM. This is what the majority of sourced content in the article consists of. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect: My opinion on the article is largely unchanged from the previous AfD; it provides far too much detail (WP:VGSCOPE) and at the same time doesn't contribute any sort of holistic understanding other than "Faction A has units X, Y, and Z with attributes J, K, and L". I also disagree with the assertion that there's any real-world context here; once you start talking about the historical basis of the units, you're no longer talking about Age-of-Mythology units, you're talking about whatever it is that unit shares a name with. Nifboy (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I vaguely recall WP:VG deciding to mine this for relevant referenced details, merge it to the appropriate AOM games, and dispose of the rest. I'm not in the mood to trawl archives to find the discussion, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, though actual discussion is notably lacking. Hooray for the search bar integrated into the archive template. Nifboy (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki: This article is composed solely of game guide information with no encyclopedic information. The so-called "real world information" is also original research. It should go into an external wiki or something like StrategyWiki.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's already been transwikied, so Delete - I don't see how such an obscure redirect will help anything. But if necessary, Redirect.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per DGG. Well referenced article, very well written. Ikip (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – per AMiB, it's essentially game guide material wrapped up in references irrelevant to the context. Fails WP:VGSCOPE. I also agree with Zxcvbnm on not seeing where a redirect helps, but I'd be fine with that result as well. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 20:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, well referenced and well formatted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep DGG has it right. This type of combo article that should definitely be encouraged as a perfect example of how to correctly handle such material for these types of games. Contrary to the tag placed in the article, it doesn't violate WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines... and actually follows them quite accurately. It is not a "cheat-sheet" or a "how-to". It is a properly detailed and coherent list of essential information (NOT minutiae) that would overburden Age of Mythology if merged, and would diminish Wiki and a readers understanding of the parent article if deleted. And Transwiki? The parent article is here... so should be the child.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How is information such as "The destroyer is an infantry building with a bonus against buildings; it is also effective against archers." or "They are strong agaist human soldiers, cost no population; however only five may be used at one time.", which the article is largely composed of, notable and of any relevance to readers whom are trying to understand the subject from a non-player's perspective? This sort of information is wholly in-universe and the very definition of minutiae, and holds absolutely no significance in the reader's search for significance. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - previous editor above me has summed it up more succinctly than I could. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In my mind, this is comparable to a "List of Characters", or a "List of Episodes" article attached to a video game/television program article. Both of which, I believe, are acceptable under our current guidelines/consensus. This article is not a guide to playing the game, so that argument is irrelevant. It is not bloated with plot/in-universe information; it is concise, and mostly covers things with appropriate depth. While it may have some instances of excess in-universe content, as they love to say, AfD is not for cleanup! Finally, it provides (mind you, interesting) comparisons with and links to real soldiers/ships/mythological creatures. So there's some real-world context for ya. If the article is ultimately deleted, there is no need to leave a redirect in place. seresin ( ¡? )  10:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't bring yourself to pop a keep at the front of the comment then, could you? ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've stated before (this is to seresin), the real-world context is useless and irrelevant in this article because the sources only present information relevant to real-world historical subjects, not the in-game units. To compare the information from these sources to Age of Mythology is original research. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Consider a biography of the form "James Smith (1975- ) is a farmer(ref:the OED definition of farmer) in Springfield, North Carolina(ref:atlas showing that Springfield is in North Carolina) who grows tobacco(ref:a botanical guide that shows that tobacco is farmed)." The sourcing in this article is of this form, and it's not good sourcing or good encyclopedia writing. WP:NOTPAPER doesn't just mean that Wikipedia isn't limited in size; it also means that Wikipedia is a hyperlinked web on top of being a series of discrete articles, and this article defies that, adding trivial factual claims that should be in other articles and hyperlinked from here. So no, this is not well-referenced, and the only comparison is juxtaposition, because there aren't any sources comparing the game roles of these units to the various units' role in history and/or myth. That said, there is value in this article in the hyperlinking, to understand that these units are based on historical or mythical figures, even when you strip away the specious, badly-referenced factual claims about history that belong in the target articles anyway. What we're left with once the game guide and specious historical/mythical facts are stripped away is an interesting linkfarm that does increase understanding of the game as a whole, on a project where link-only lists of stuff that appears in a game are generally frowned upon. "Guns of [historical shooting game]" are routinely deleted, even if every single weapon is a historical one, and this is no different. Yet, this list does have the same value such lists of weapons or areas or whatnot would have. Ultimately, I'm conflicted on whether we should have an article at this title; it wouldn't ever be a good encyclopedia article, but it would have some value in listing the myths referenced by this game series. Something tells me WP:VG has already made the general decision on this sort of list, and that decision is not to do it unless there's something you can say about the game other than "X, Y, and Z appear in it." By the same token, such lists are rarely deleted, because they can be mined for a smerge into the game/series articles. For these reasons, I think this should be userfied/projectified, while WP:VG either decides to change their standards for "List of X in Y" or decides on what to mine from this to put into other articles. Ikip or A Nobody would probably be willing to accept this in their userspace if nobody else is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, this article does have several references. And for additional referencing, you could always look at the official game manual. This article is fairly well written.Smallman12q (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did anyone say it doesn't have references? We can't base an article on primary sources alone, it has to have real-world context as well, that of which in this article is very weak for reasons I have explained above. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Smerge and/or redirect, not keep: I've softened on this article, because there is some interesting information about the units in the lead, and the article passes the bare threshold of notability. But Wikipedia does WP:NOT cover every notable topic. This article violates WP:VGSCOPE's general rule against lists of weapons, which is based on an amalgam of WP:NOT, WP:NOT, and WP:NOT. Basically, we should summarize the notable concepts within any game, but a complete and detailed list of units is simply a violation of policy-based standards of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. If there is limited support for merging or redirecting, then deletion would be fine by me. Randomran (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge - Excessive detail regarding in-game minutiae. SharkD (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Age of Mythology. ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - perhaps not a game guide entirely, but a level of detail not needed for understanding of the game. A list of units in any game is a level of detail that is prohibited per WP:VG guidelines; just because there's some factoids about where the units came from in history does not mean that this gets a pass. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Admirable effort has been put into making the game itself a featured article, which covers everything this list's preamble does and more, that part is duplicative. The list itself is exactly what WP:GAMECRUFT #6 refers to, it's surplus to requirements and falls between two stools - it's deliberately brief to avoid being a gameguide but at the same time does little to expand on the basic rock-paper-scissors system already explained in the main article. That leaves it as a list of internal links to articles which are about the mythic creatures etc. themselves, not their relationships in this game. Anyone who wants that is more than capable of using the search bar, the argument that they're based on real or mythical entities and therefore it's valid is bunk. It's exactly the same situation for the civillization special units in Age of Empires II and a very large number of the units from Age of Empires III. For instance, I'm playing as the Russians in AoE3 ATM and had no idea what an Oprichnik or Strelet is, except that I do now because I just looked them up - no list involved. This list is nicely presented but when it boils down to it there's no real purpose to it. Players wanting to know what is effective against what have their manuals or in-game descriptions anyway and anyone undertaking research isn't going to find the answers on this list. Someoneanother 18:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Merge and delete and WP:PRESERVE (a policy, which trumps guidelines), as it seems information has moved around as such deletion is not an option in this case. Merge discussion can be held on article’s talk page.  Article is consistent with our scope of coverage on games and an encyclopedia is essentially a reference guide, so it is consistent with what we are.  No real reason to delete beyond “I don’t like it”.  Article actually meets disputed WP:FICT as well by having multiple third party references cited.  In any event, deletion is an extreme last resort and is not even a real option in this case.  Moreover, I had tagged this article for rescue on the 13th, and apparently one of the deletes occurred after being asked by another editor to in effect disrupt rescue efforts for articles I tag for rescue (note it was the ONLY AfD that user commented in following that talk page post on either the 13th or 14th).  I hope that this talk page request is not what brought the “vote” here, i.e. rescue efforts will be frustrated because of who’s attempting them rather than because of the actual validity of the rescue efforts, but it may be worth keeping an eye out if there is some kind of trend that suggests otherwise.  In any event the article is consistent with what Wikipedia is and passes our scope of inclusion, which is generally favorable to lists of units.  No reason really to delete as it unquestionably passes all policies and guidelines with flying colors.  Also, “cruft” is never a valid or legitimate reason for deletion.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The main arguments seem to be "Keep, the references are sufficient and the form is pleasing," "Merge/userfy, some of of this content is dross and/or this is not an appropriate form for this content, but we can find a use for it in other articles," and "Delete/redirect, there is no content here worth saving that is not already present elsewhere." None of these are incompatible with the GFDL or with WP:PRESERVE. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The last one is per the GFDL in that it seems that content from this article has shifted among other articles as well and as such we need to maintain the attribution history. As far as WP:PRESERVE goes, because the content is not libelous, not a hoax, not a copy vio, but is backed by a variety of sources, we should preserve it in some capacity whether it's kept as a separate article as I believe to be best, or merged elsewhere, or redirected with the edit history intact.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument to delete is that it is redundant, duplicative of other articles, fails various clauses of WP:NOT, and/or original research, all of which are called out specifically in WP:PRESERVE (never mind that PRESERVE's list is far from exclusive).
 * As for content which has been merged, I don't think any such content exists, unless you can point to any. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority of third-party sources this article is backed by, as I and several others have explained several times before, are those which are impertinent to the article's subject, and merely provide redundant information on historical subjects, which belongs elsewhere on Wikipedia; this is exactly why we link to pages such as Hoplite and Minotaur instead of rehashing such information into different contexts. Take this historical info away, and all you have is a weakly-sourced game guide (see examples above), which constitutes as original research (which fails WP:PRESERVE). Wikipedia is a place to find reliably-sourced information on a subject, not user-written guides for game players to find out which in-game unit is compatible with what. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't buy that so called game guide content is problematic. A reference is after all a guide.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not redundant or duplicative, because the list section seems unique to this article. It passes WP:NOT because it is not all in-universe and because it is cited in non-primary sources it is unoriginal research, which means it meets PRESERVE.
 * Some of the out of universe content has been merged to Age_of_Mythology and Age_of_Mythology and back and forth since at least August of last year if not sooner. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, by redundancy I was referring to the information which cites historical sources, which provide no information relating to AoM and therefore do nothing but duplicate information which should belong in articles for the historical subjects that the sources cover. An example excerpt is "The word Juggernaut refers to any force, metaphorical or physical, that is regarded as unstoppable or unconquerable. [9]", which belongs in the Juggernaut article, not here, as it provides no proof that the AoM unit was named with regards to the historical/nominal subject. Without this unsuitable information, all that is left is information such as "The Mummy is a dual ranged/melee myth unit. Its special attack instantly kills any human unit and turns it into a minion. Minions are fairly tough melee units, but die after one minute." and "Like other cavalry units, they are good against Archers, but the Jarl in particular also has bonus damage to myth units", which is wholly unsourced (sans a few unreliable cites from the Age of Mythology Heaven fansite) and nothing but OR.
 * The only reliable citations in the article are a few in the lead, from several reviews of the game. This is hardly an indication of the necessity for a separate units article, though; at most, such info can be merged into the main AoM article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, there's no reason why at worst we wouldn't merge and/or redirect with the edit history intact. I see no compelling urgency to redlink the article or delete its edit history.  The article works as an effective spinoff or sub article of the main article and is a good navigational tool for fans of the game to find links to article on major mythological topics, which means having this article provides a means for those interested in the game to actually come across and learn about thse aspects of mythology.  Thus, the article serves a beneficial educational function for our community.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This article does little other than cater to fans of the game for reasons I've explained above, and there are existing lists and other methods to locate mythological articles on Wikipedia. As Someone another explained above, it is more than easy enough for players of the game who are interested in subjects depicted in-game to type the subject's name into the search bar and find the appropriate article, which is much more likely to happen than them finding this article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * These so called fans are members of our community, volunteer contributors and thousands of readers. Everything we cover "caters" to someone, whether it historians, biologists, musicians, or gamers.  Sure there may be other lists of mythological topics, but here those specifically interested in the ones covered in this game have a convenient list that will broaden their horizons accordingly.  So, long as 4,000 readers a month believe the article worthwhile and we know it is not nonsense or libelous, I say let those editors continue to improve it and let us continue to provide our readers with something that matters to those who actually will use this article.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether information is useful to someone, an encyclopedia should provide comprehensible and reliable information for everyone, something which original research and guides fail to do. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but this content is not original research and nor is it purely game guide. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How? Where are the sources to prove otherwise? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In published books and reviews of the games. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All those two links seem to provide is irrelevant information/criticism pertaining to the main game itself, which can be adequately covered in the Reception section of the main AoM article; and strategy guides, which are useless because, although (sometimes) provided by a professional and reliable source, they add nothing to the real-world context and provide no meaningful information to anyone whom has not played the game. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually they provide critical commentary on the units in the game, i.e. real-world context and meaningful information that can be used for a reception section on this article. The strategy guides are especially useful because they are a professional and therefore reliable source that contains meaningful information to even non-gamer players.  I typically look at game guides prior to actually playing the game to learn about it.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then such reliably-sourced information should be added to the relevant sections of the main Age of Mythology article and only split when it becomes evident that the information can sustain an article of its own. What is here at the moment is either poorly-sourced or redundant and should therefore be deleted. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is here is sourced interesting and useful information that meets our inclusion guidelines and policies and will be kept or merged at worst as there is clearly realistic potential for improvement. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletre per not (game guide). Eusebeus (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM is an "argument" to avoid in deletion discussions, especially in this case when it has been proven inaccurate, i.e. when it is apparent that it is not actually a game guide. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that but I actually wrote per not; however I agree with nom as well. Eusebeus (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. What doesn't consist of redundant factoids about history, legend, and mythology violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Deor (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This article however does not consist of redudant factoids and actually is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Moreover, due to the merge that took place back in the summer, it cannot be deleted per the GFDL.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument, however, is wrong! Empty gainsaying doesn't accomplish anything. Perhaps you could offer some examples of encyclopedic content in this article, or offer ways in which its problems could be addressed? If this isn't deleted, it'd at least help me figure out what to suggest to WP:VG to do with this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) AN, either supply some diffs to back up your assertion about "the merge that took place back in the summer" or shut the hell up about the GFDL. Deor (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They are pretty obvious from the previous discussion and this and the main article's edit histories, which hopefully you read. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Numbers, numbers, numbers. Consensus is worthless if it's centred around ideas that violate policies, the wider consensus. Despite my repetitive replies to several people's posts above, no-one except you has truly partaken in this discussion on the keep side of things, so I'm assuming they have no deeper points to assert than "not really written in a game guide context".
 * MY argument is 100% spot on! :)
 * Deleting this article accomplishes nothing. The way to improve this article is to go through the various sources available in the Google News and Books results and to improve the article accordingly.  Since this discussion will likely close within a few hours, we can do that after it closes at our leisure.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Improve the article in what way? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Use the secondary source for additional out of universe context, maybe restructure so as to have a reception section. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should include information only when it can be sourced, not the other way around. If it was otherwise, WP:RS, WP:OR, etc., wouldn't even be policies.
 * Also, on the subject of the GFDL, the article can be redirected if necessary to attribute contributions; we are discussing whether such information should be present in the live version of the article. I think that pretty much addresses that.
 * And Deor, please assume good faith. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The content has been moved around from here with at least Age_of_Mythology, which also is at worst a logical redirect place. As there is a logical merge/redirect location, that discussion should have been held on the article's talk page. Look, I think you can make a reasonable case for a merge and redirect. I think it should be kept, but if that's a middle ground, compromise, okay; however, I am not seeing anything to suggest that this should be redlinked or that there's something dangerous in the edit history. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What secondary source? As for reception, I daresay we don't need a reception section composed of cherrypicked quotes from reviews of the games; such nonsense would be high on the list of dross that will not survive a merge; what critical reception that is chiefly about this topic and not merely the individual games do you have to offer? This is the put up or shut up stage of article writing; I'm not interested in counting coup over the number of Google hits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, unfortunately, this discussion has descended into a back and forth that is needlessly preventing us from doing what we can with the sources to improve the article. It is a bit much to be expected on a volunteer site to simultaneously argue in defense of the article and play games editing as well with some who are only going to be arguing against rather than helping the effort to improve. Because the discussion will close tonight, and it's clear it's a no consensus, we should probably stop arguing and instead either see what we can do with the sources and work together or move on. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All you're arguing now is that deletion of unsourced content is unconstructive, which I've explained already is not true (per the policies). You're free to contribute reliable sources, etc., to content where applicable, but unsourced content should be omitted until that is done. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is, however, sourced content in the article that I am arguing to keep. I am saying that we should incorporate additional out of universe content and references.  Wikipedia is a work in progress with no deadline.  Once we have something that is at least somewhat sourced with potential established we either merge what we can and leave a redirect with edit history intact so that when editors want to revise and reference further they don't have to just start over.  I have come across articles that have been unreferenced for years and yet I referenced them after that time and did so because the article existed.  I'm not great at starting articles, but I can help reference them.  With regards to this article, I am currently going through it for grammar and format and hope to return to it source wise.  The sooner we're done going back and forth here, the sooner, we can return to improving this content and discussing how best to go about doing so.  Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 00:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The policies explicitly forbid inclusion of unsourced content. It's completely fine to use your user page, etc., to process and improve potential content for articles, but what is made live must follow the policies, regardless of how likely it seems it can be improved in the future. We are not building an encyclopedia by including information which isn't encyclopedic; encyclopedicity (that's not a word, but whatever) being defined by the policies and guidelines. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then when all else fails WP:IGNOREALLRULES, because deletion is an extreme last resort. And we are not simply an encyclopedia, but also an almanac and gazzetteer.  This content is of the list format one would find in an almanac and consistent per our first pillar with a specialized encyclopedia, but more so than anything else is exactly the kind of stuff I believe makes Wikipedia relevant, i.e. rather than a print encyclopedia, Wikipedia contains these kinds of articles that are helpful in an educational setting for students who say play this game and are learning about mythology.  An instructor can point them to this article a la "See, you're game touches upon history, now follow these links for more information about the other uses of these concepts.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Deletion is a normal, everyday practice wholly supported by policies agreed as normal by the vast majority of the Wikipedia community, and not merely an "extreme last resort", as you put it, to hide libel and copyrighted material from public view. Your viewpoints go against the very fundamentals of Wikipedia's workings, and you'll have to change the enforced policies before you'll have any chance of practising things differently for this article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion of hoaxes, libel, and copy vios is indeed an everyday practice supported by policies, but deletion of encyclopedic content supported by hundreds of editors and thousands of readings goes against the very fundamentals of Wikipedia's workings, because the enforced policies unquestionably support keeping this article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * These policies being? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All of them really. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That means nothing unless you can explain why. The only policy which you have cited, with reasons, is WP:PRESERVE, which you seem to be using as little more than a standing point for this "preserve everything regardless of whether it is notable" viewpoint, which I have explained is not how things work at Wikipedia. From here, you have been deviating into a wholly relevant contention over whether the normal process of deletion and cemented policies should apply to this article, weakly standing by WP:IAR in total ignorance of the other major policies which formulate this site. Sorry, but your best bet is to go elsewhere if you're intent on presenting original research. Wikipedia isn't going to change, and definitely not from your assertions alone. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have to change for this article to be kept. I have yet to see any explanation as to why deletion is appropriate here rather than merging and redirecting at worst.  This article should be kept because it is notable, it is verifiable, it is unoriginal research, it is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia concerning fictional topics relevant in the real world.  There is as such no legitimate grounds for deletion.  All I see is essentially "I don't like it" dressed up as if it's something more but that's all there.  This article is what Wikipedia is here for.  If you don't like that, then ignore it and work on whatever topics you know about and like.  Just because you don't know about or care for this subject is not valid grounds for removing it altogether.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I give up. I don't see the point in arguing with someone whom is putting words in my mouth and attempting to shunt me aside in the interests of protecting clearly unsuitable and impertinent information for purely synthesised justifications. Push to allow original research all you want, but the day OR gives way is the day Wikipedia stops being an encyclopedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also an almanac and gazetteer per WP:FIVE. The material is clearly suitable either as a separate article or as part of the main article, because it is unoriginal research.  I am not closed minded to the possibility of a merge or redirect with edit history intact, but redlinking or deleting the edit history is unacceptable in this case, partially so because if say four accounts call for deletion in some five day discussion for an article that has existed for months, that dozens of editors saw fit to work on, thousands view every month, and over a half dozen say here to keep, merge, or redirect would be ignoring the wishes of the community and rather imposing a needlessly limited view upon them, but anyway, might as well agree to disagree.  Have a nice night!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is neither almanac- or gazetteer-style content, so I don't see where you're going with that. Furthermore, "the wishes of the community" is exactly what I'm pushing - the wishes of the whole Wikipedia community, as a consensus, to enforce the policies. There's a disclaimer clearly displayed at the bottom of every page which states, succinctly, that you must adhere to policies and guidelines and that your contributions may be butchered mercilessly with no regards to the effort put into producing it. Frankly, seeing as you've done so little to actually prove this article's content is suitable for inclusion and no-one else has truly contended my points, I'd say policies have established the true consensus. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia. The wishes of the whole community tends to support these kinds of articles and clearly there's no consensus anywhere nor here for deletion.  The article adheres to the policies and guidelines for the many reasons elaborated on in the previous discussion and in this one by not just me but a half dozen plus editors.  No one has proven that this article is somehow detrimental to our project and as such no one has presented a compelling reason for deletion.  Those policies that have consensus support this article's inclusion even if at worst it is a merge and redirect with the edit history intact.  Seriously, why is it such a big deal?  We know it's verifiable, we know it can be improved further, and we know it is relevant to thousands of readers.  We don't need anything else beyond those realities.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we strip this down about to one obvious truth: no reliable source, no inclusion. This is incontestable. Look everywhere, ask anyone, if you want evidence of this. I've asserted, pages above, why the sources provided in this article are unsuitable. Now prove to me, with regards to my comments, why they are. If you can't do that, then your argument has no basis. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting breakdown we have thus far; going with just the boldest text that resembles "votes":
 * Speedy keep 1
 * Strong keep 3
 * Keep 5
 * Merge 4
 * Redirect 3
 * Soft redirect 1
 * Transwiki 1
 * Userfy 1
 * Delete 6 (at least two of these said okay with redirecting, although they didn't bold "redirect" and so I didn't count that in the redirect count above)
 * Strong delete 1
 * Clearly the community prefers a solution other than deletion and perhaps the merge and redirect middle ground is where to go. In any event, the article can be improved further by using these reliable secondary sources, which is why the majority if editors believe it should be included in some capacity and which is where there is no basis for deletion.  If you want to meet at a half way point here as reflected by the above reality, okay.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Point is, the article is devoid of reliable sources, you and others have failed to show how policies support this article, therefore the article is deleted. That's Wikipedia. The end. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you were curious, the previous discussion broke down as follows:
 * Keep 13
 * Weak keep 1
 * Very weak keep 1
 * Merge 2
 * Transwiki 7
 * Delete 15
 * Which is pretty similar statistically to the previous discussion. Do you think perhaps that "despite your repetitive replies" simply suggests you haven't convinced the numerous keeps or merges above that the content is unmergeable of that it doesn't pass our policies and guidelines?  In any event, the article contains reliable sources and you have not successfully shown otherwise.  Thus, the article will either be kept outright or as a result of no consensus or a merge and redirect, which is indeed the paperless encyclopedia that anybody can edit.  The article has developed considerably since nomination with the only new sources added being third party independent sources from Google News and Google Books for content on the game history, importance, and receptions as specifically relates to the units.  Surely, at worst this content is mergeable or demonstrates further potential.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All you've done is add headings, formatting and a few sources which still show no need for this to be a separate article. There is still absolutely no reason why the little sourced content there is be merged and whatever else purged. This is not a place for synthesis. Stop pretending it is. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 05:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I (and at least one other) am still improving it further. As such, you still are not showing any reason why we shouldn't at worst merge this material.  Please do not focus on trying to "win" the argument at the expense of pretending their are reasons for deletion that if ever valid have been or are being addressed.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All the policies I've stated before, which clearly state that content should only be included if reliably sourced, the large majority of this of which is not. That means information which doesn't comply with said policies is deleted, regardless of whether it could have potential (this is why there's an edit history).
 * Anyway, I'm not going to lecture on at you about what seems to be obvious. This is clearly a conflict of interest, which I will address in the morning. Goodnight. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 05:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, when you say "large majority" it means there is still material that is reliably sourced, i.e. keepable or mergeable content. What seems obvious to any one person is not necessarily so to everyone else.  Again, the majority in this and they previous discussion argue for something other than outright deletion and the articles has actually improved from the first AfD and now further since your nomination.  In any event, I'm surprised the discussion is still open, so hopefully we won't be going back and forth come the morning!  So, with that, yes, good night! :)  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, this seems like a reasonable subarticle to have. Everyking (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "I like it" isn't a very strong argument. Can you provide reasons for your considering it "reasonable"? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a poor argument, but I'm not using it. I'm saying that the article represents an appropriate form of organization and includes a level of detail suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everyking (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how this discussion could be so involved. The article is a list of units in a video game - it clearly fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. The sources provided are either game guides/fansites or generic references for mythological creatures that have absolutely nothing to do with the series or the units of the series, so there is nothing to indicate that notability has been established. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am surprised it has been so involved as well, as the article clearly passes our video game inclusion guidelines by containing content that is inconsistent with game guides. The sources provides are actually secondary source reveiws of the game from the Google News seach.  It gets so many results that it is notable by any reasonable standard.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:00, 18 February 2009 (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.