Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Age of Mythology series

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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, default as keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of units in the Age of Mythology series[edit]

List of units in the Age of Mythology series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not only does this article assert no notability, but it is also a gameguide. Gamecruft is not allowed on this site. DETELE and TRANSWIKI to a Age of Mythology wikia. ZeroGiga (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Real world information is provided, and there is further information (interviews with developers, etc.) that can be added, if I ever get around to it. Not a gameguide; notable as an aspect of Age of Mythology, keep. —Giggy 00:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Admittably, there is a lot of fancruft in the article. However this is a reason to clean-up rather than delete. The Greek human land unit section in particular shows the potential of the article, providing real-world information and a sentence on the unit's role in the game. Iciac (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cleanup is not synonymous with delete. Notable, has the potential to be well-sourced and expanded, a decent sub-article of Age of Mythology. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - has no outside notability. Furthermore wikipedia is not a game guide --T-rex 17:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The game obviously has notability, as its article is an FA. This is just a sub article to prevent the main one from getting to long. This article reads nothing like a game guide to me, and even if some parts read like one to, you can try to fix it. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another article being an FA has no bearing on notability. Furthermore, this information belongs neither in it's own article nor within the parent article. It should simply be deleted --T-rex 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Protonk below that this might be an IAR exception to NOTE. As far as I can tell, it doesn't meet any of the other WP:DEL guidelines. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and very weak keep Sigh. This is my weakness. This article is very well put together, clear from "fancruft" (as it is a simple list of characters and units, not filled with backstory for each, etc), and attached to a well tended parent article. There aren't (from what I can tell), reliable sources cited that cover the exact subject of the article (there are a few non-independent and non-reliable sources that do so). Since this article isn't really about how to use the characters and units, it doesn't fail WP:GAMEGUIDE (although this is pretty borderline) and since it doesn't get bogged down in plot details it doesn't fail WP:PLOT. So the real problem is WP:N. In my mind, THIS is the article I think of when I look for an WP:IAR exception to notability. This article is clear, contextualized (the fantasy references and interlinks) and helpful. If only all of the "lists of X in Y" were this good. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is never a need to list units, weapons, items, abilities, or anything else of the like. No matter how well written or well organized they are kept, they are still just pieces of game guide material unless real world context can be provided. This kind of information belongs summed up within the main article (Age of Mythology#Units does a fine job), not given any sort of coverage. TTN (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helps to understand the subject--nowhere near enough help to play the game. Gameguide means something that actually would work as one--people have tried writing them, and I support those deletions, but every detailed article about aspects of a game doesnt fit that category. This is a reasonable breakout article for a notable game. DGG (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete It is purely game guide. Which fails wikipedia policy. A transwiki is a good idea. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Judging by recent AfD nominations (like the ridiculous BK locations one), it seems people are forgetting what a WP:GAMEGUIDE is. A game guide is basically an instruction manual. A guide that tells people exactly how to play the game and what they need to do. This list doesn't. Period. It is merely a listing of all the units in the game with links to articles of the real life soliders. It helps people to understand the gameplay aspect of the game, and links people to real world information (it even explains how they were used in the past). Yes it needs cleanup, but as has been said above, this does not make it synonymous with deletion. --.:Alex:. 19:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're being too literal in your definition. Game guide material is anything that only would benefit someone looking up a game. Information like this needs to be essential to understanding the game. Only a brief summary of the units and their overall purpose in the gameplay is essential in this case. TTN (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just read it word for word and fail to see how this article fits under it. --.:Alex:. 11:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the above link or something else? Point six describes that lists of gameplay elements are considered to be inappropriate. This is just a pure list elements without any real world context, so it fails that point and it is also considered game guide material. Please do not mistake the fact that many of the units are based on real world elements and myths as the topic having a real world context. The same thing could be done with various other gameplay elements, such as connecting weapons in a game to their real world counterparts or enemies to whatever real world elements they are based off of. Both of those cases would be deleted, and this is no different. TTN (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, point six brings us back the issue of notability, not whether it's a gameguide or not. --.:Alex:. 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is explaining what material is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, citing WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#GUIDE, and WP:UNDUE and encouraging summaries of the information instead. This information falls under that section, so it is considered game guide material like any other list of gameplay elements. TTN (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Contains real-world historical information which can be beneficial to a real-world audience. However, cleanup is definitely necessary, as said information needs to be sourced and verified. MuZemike (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an amazing array of references for an element of a game. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only difference between this list of units and any other list of units (such as this one) is that these particular units have a historical (or mythological) basis. Since we already have articles detailing what these units represent, the historical bases in the list is redundant; you're no longer talking about Age-of-Mythology units, you're talking about whatever it is that unit shares a name with. Once you've taken out the historical basis, the rest is pretty basic WP:NOT#GUIDE, such as this description of the Dryad unit: "The Dryad is a unit created at the Hesperides tree, which is used primarily for defense against enemy attackers. Fast, fairly cheap, cost no population, and respectable fighters, they can do quite a lot of harm on mortal units; However, you may only be able to create five Dryads at a time.". It would be like creating List of weapons in Metal Gear Solid and adding in links and descriptions of all the obscure based-on-real-life weapons contained therein. And then describing the rest of the weapons for completeness' sake. Nifboy (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is pretty hard-core game guide. It's full of advice and game stats and lacks only the second person to be "Use X to do Y." This material can easily be covered in the main AoM article, with "Units in Age of Mythology are based on historical weapons and warriors appropriate to each nation, as well as mythological creatures chosen from historical mythology." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the article had information on how or why these units were selected, and how their in-game representations were designed as such, my opinion could have been different; unfortunately, whatever reliably sourced information there is, it is about the game itself or a one sentence quotes on what a unit is capable of and how to use them in the game. The current list does not display intent to be discriminate, simply listing all the units without care for their purpose. Per WP:LIST, lists are to be for information, navigation, or development purposes. On information, the units as a whole are not of interest to the general reader. On navigation, the current list do not match that purpose, simply linking whenever there is a unit. On development, the terms used in the list are not of interest to readers, many of which only exist in the game and would fail notability as their own articles. Hence, the list is an indiscriminate collection of information. Furthermore, the article is acting like a game-guide (WP:VGSCOPE, WP:NOTGUIDE) by teaching readers that "the Nereid is the most powerful sea myth unit when fighting OTHER myth units. The Nereid has a whopping 7x bonus vs myth units, meaning it does 700% more damage to myth units after armor is taken into effect. 25 * 7 = 175 'The Nereid is a fairly run-of-the-mill sea myth unit. It's fairly strong against most mortal ships, but weak against ram ships.'" Perhaps out of point, but I think that a "List of mythological creatures in the Age of Mythology series" minus game-guide materials would be a better list than this (a discriminate focus, and helpful directory). Jappalang (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft, Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). I am especially pleased with the non-game guide content of the article and its effectiveness as a spinoff sub-article that actually has developed into an article with standalone notability. This organized and referenced article that contains a prose lead containg cited out of universe commentary also provides a navigational purpose with internal links within the list as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Boilerplate that does not address the nom or any of the delete comments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it does, especially the last comments that are especially unique to this article for which no compelling reason for deletion has been presented. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, uh.
    This essay addresses conduct in discussions, not this article in any way.
    This is a sweeping summary of policy that even says we don't include things indiscriminately.
    This is an argument to popularity. Nobody's saying that people don't like game guides or this game (and it IS full of Google-happy keywords to boot), and, well, I wouldn't base any important decisions on these stats.
    "Unoriginal research" is a "nuh uh!" claim with nothing to support it. Do you see sources backing factual claims such as "Lazer Bear has a large amount of data concerning him in the history" and "Bella is a dog presumably based on a dog owned by one of the developers" and "Its design is based on the legendary Greek monster Cerberus" and a dozen others I didn't bother listing here?
    And the rest is just crap you copy and paste into every AFD that isn't on a hoax until...
    "I am especially pleased with the non-game guide content of the article and its effectiveness as a spinoff sub-article that actually has developed into an article with standalone notability." So where's the non-fansite source that mentions AOM after the lead? Surely if this is so notable, you can point me to one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator called the article "fancruft," i.e. an essay, and thus not a legitimate reason for deletion.
    Including this list would be a discriminate following of the Five pillars.
    Our readers become editors and even donors and if thousands of them are interested in non-hoax, non-libel, non-copy vio articles, then their belief that the article is worthwhile matters.
    Unoriginal research is exactly what a referenced article is.
    You and others copy and paste in every AfD that is a list as well...
    Reviews of the games focus on the units. Notice the top sentence summary for the review: "Featuring lots of interesting, inventive design decisions, plenty of fun-to-use units..." (my italics). You can get further out of universe description of the universe in published books that aren't strategy guides, such as [1]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator also chews with his mouth open. Doesn't have anything to do with this article. If you have a personal problem, User talk:ZeroGiga is right there. --> User talk:ZeroGiga
    Excuding it would also be a discriminate following of the five pillars. Thankfully, we have guidelines instead of having to rely solely vague sweeping statements of principle.
    You may want to read WP:NOR, then point to me where the sources back the claims made in this article. "This based on the mythical Cerberus. Cerburus is yadda[ref saying Cerberus is yadda]" is not good sourcing. If you don't understand why by now, go back and read WP:NOR again.
    "But teacher, they were throwing glue, too!" It's copypasta filler, doesn't advance any claim or defend any point, so it's glossed.
    It covers the units as a whole, covering them in broad similar groups and only mentioning a couple of examples to illustrate the sort of units. Exactly as we do in the parent article, which is a featured article. Do you have a non-game-guide source that goes into anything close to the level of detail of this article?
    I'm gonna make this really big, so you don't miss it, because it hasn't seemed to have made an impact on you. JUST BECAUSE THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE APPEARS IN A SEARCH DOES NOT MEAN THAT THINGS IN THAT SEARCH ARE GOOD SOURCES. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A good deal of what you wrote above does not seem to make logical or coherent sense, so I am not sure what points you are making, but I'll do my best to address them anyway. The nominator citing "cruft" an essay as a reason for deletion is relevant to this discussion in that it is not a policy based reason, i.e. not a compelling reason for deletion. I don't see any original thesis presented here and I do see secondary sources cited, thus it is not original research. So, the copy and paste reasons for deletion are also to be glossed over too, right? The article makes use of a variety of secondary sources that are not game guides. I'm not going to type back in big letters as I don't believe in pointed editing, but I will say that the title of the article matters when it turns up in sources that outright discuss the subject of the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 09:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The nom cited WP:N and WP:NOT#GUIDE (which are pretty compelling what with lack of sources covering the subject at anything close to this level of detail and all the instructional game detail, and described the article as cruft. That someone uses the word cruft does not mean that the entirety of the person's argument is glib dismissal.
    Yeah, I gloss copy-paste nonsense all the time. But when I hit things like UNSOURCED EVALUATIVE CLAIMS, INSTRUCTIVE GAME GUIDE CONTENT, and LACK OF SOURCES COVERING THIS SUBJECT AT THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL, I stop. Where's the bit where you refute these with something other than glib dismissal or copypasta again? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any drawbacks to our project in keeping this article. Far more editors and readers appear to see value in it than the handful arguing to delete in this particular discussion. Therefore, I see benefits to our community in keeping the article and even others above, including yourself and TTN, for example, who believe it can be covered in the main article really don't provide any reason why then it couldn't be merged and redirected in the worst case scenario, i.e. I see no overwhelmingly urgent need for an outright deletion and I don't see whatever is supposed to be gain by doing that somehow outweighing the benefits of having extensive coverage of this topic that obviously a good number of editors believe notable enough to both work on and argue to keep here and for which readers believe Wikipedia a valid place to look for such information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 09:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you've completely evaded WP:N and WP:V and WP:NOT#GUIDE in favor of a populist argument? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is notable (given that editors can't even agree on whether to label the fiction notability page historic, an essay, etc., the community clearly lacks consensus on fictional notability), verifiable (the sources are sufficient to me, you may disagree, but it meets my understanding of verifiability), and consistent with what Wikipedia is (that whole prose multi-paragraph lead is inconsistent with a game guide, so I don't buy it being a guide just because part of the article has a tabled list). You and I obviously disagree about these kinds of things and it is just really looking as if we are not going to convince each other. I am not sure what we are actually accomplishing going back and forth. Discussions seem only worthwhile when there's a realistic chance one of the two will be convinced by the other. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 09:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're not going to address all the unsourced claims or WP:N or the fact that the bulk of the article is a game guide at all, huh.
    What's being accomplished is it's made clear that you really don't have an argument, so that the closer can properly discard your "Well, I like it, and so do a lot of other people, and nuh uh!" as empty faff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already addressed it and in actuallity you are just showing that you don't have an argument and that your "I don't like it" can be disregarded by the closing admin. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cute big letters, but they all merged togetther like black robot-spaghetti on my browser...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah. Stupid browsers dealing with ugly HTML differently! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It does look like one of those funney puzzles with hidden letters :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to length issues with primary article. As it is a list, out-of-universe stuff can be on main article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, wouldn't just not going into this level of detail also deal with the length issues in the main article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, we have out ideas about what levels of detail are suitable then. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we're back at the old fiction dilemma. If there are sources that we can use to write this article, it's notable. If there aren't any sources, however, how do we improve this article from the OR-heavy, badly-sourced mess that it is? How do we write Slowbro? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an idea - every single Featured Article I have been involved with, and most GAs now, have involved offline sourcing, and not just a minor amount but for a large portion of the article. There will be various issues of gaming magazines which discuss elements of this game in detail, just as I could (if I want) source a huge amount of individual TV episodes but I haven't the time. But anyway, this is a list so I am not as fussed about this, the devil (in this case) is in the detail. I am happy with more in my life (and on wikipedia). If you choose the 'pedia to be (in my opinion) blander, so be it. We are going to roll with consensus anyway so I am not going to push the proverbial uphill. You have your goalposts, I have mine and I seriously doubt either will influence the other, so we'll leave it to the closer shall we? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've vaguely asserted that there are sources, and backed that claim with the claim that you could find sources for an unrelated topic. Uh.
    Generally, the print gaming press goes into even less detail than the online press, and tends to mirror their work online anyway. What sort of sources do you think you'd find? Where? What sort of factual claims do you expect to find in such sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was using that as an example in the depth of material periodical magazines get into. I am making an educated guess, however as a list, the main gist of commentary out-of-universe material should be in the parent article anyway. My hope is that those who are more interested in various console games would go searching more, but hey..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reasonably well organised list of information but perhaps just a bit too detailed for the game, its on the edge of an instruction manual's coverage of the game's units. Units can be quite capably summed up in the gameplay section of main article. The intro's not bad, I suggest merging that into the main article, and as the rest is well organised, transwiki the actual list of units to a suitable Wikia. -- Sabre (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete. This violates WP:NOT#GUIDE by offering statistics and advice on what creatures attacks are, what they excel against while fighting, and so forth. At best, a merge of some of the intro (as suggested already) and a possible redirect. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - more or less WP:NOTGUIDE material. Past the historical context, it's a list of units, and it's not appropriate per WP:VGSCOPE. Aside from that, no adequate notability asserted per significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources independent of the topic. sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • IGN and other sources are independent of the topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note significant coverage. Please go read what that means before replying. "Fun to use" doesn't cut it. sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who said, "Fun to use"? Anyway, the number and diversity of sources cited are significant as far as my understanding of that phrase in the context of a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You said "Fun to use". Playing coy doesn't help you. And "significant coverage" means an in-depth coverage of the topic that transcends simply mentioning the subject or summarizing it. It doesn't matter how many sources you have that present trivial coverage because it isn't indicative of notability. The question of notability is largely moot though, as the article is WP:GAMEGUIDE material, which WP:VGSCOPE proscribes against. sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I discussed earlier in my below paragraph, the Game-Guide argument doesn't apply. I have recently removed a large amount of such material from the article (though admitably there is still much more). Thus the only real arguments for deletion are notability; and the quite real concern that the historical information in the article is original research. The OR question may be discounted as the in-game encyclopaedia clearly shows that the unit conception WAS for the actual historical/mythological units (Don't get started with the O CANADA argument - THAT is definitely OR). Thus we are left with the final reason to delete - notability.
            • No, that's not me saying "fun to use" that's an independent review in a reliable source describing the units. Misrepresenting my edits doesn't help you. My read of these sources is more than simply mentioning the subject or summarizing it, i.e. I don't regard all these mentions as trivial. The article is not game guide with all that out of universe commentary in the lead paragraphs and reception section and therefore is within video game scope. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your definition of game guide is highly literal - a list of units in the game, regardless of content, is basically game guide information. That and every single bloody entry on the list still reads like game guide information - if you're going into what the unit is effective against, not effective against, and so on, that is game guide information. And stop your petty semantics. You placed the edit with "Fun to use", you knew what I was referring to, and trying to evade it is not helping you. And until you can read sources and identify what constitutes significant coverage, you're not going to save a whole lot of articles at AfD, or write decent articles for that matter. None of the sources constitute critical coverage - all summarize the game mechanics and go no farther than that. As of this posting, there is no reception section in the article, so you can stop being disingenous. sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I see no reason why we should not cover such information as it is essentially to understanding video games just as a list of Academy Award winners is essentially to our coverage on the Oscars. Please stop being disingenous, especially given that I have saved scores of articles from deletion by now. These sources constitute critical coverage, i.e. they are reviews, they comment on the units in a critical fashion. And as of this posting there is a reception section. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So it is necessary to actually go through my contributions in order to have an argument to express? That's pathetic, hell it's contemptuous. Seriously, it just lowers my respect for you every single time I converse with you. And until you can understand that "Fun to use" doesn't constitute critical coverage (it's a sentence from the title of the article for pete's sake), there's no point in continuing this argument. sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • What does your contributions have to do with anything? I haven't criticized your contributions. Please stay focused on the topic under discussion. Criticial reception in secondary sources is sufficient coverage when coupled with all the other sources used to cite the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick mention to all whom have cited that the article contains gameguide like material, and who have used quotations of these sentences to further the AFD discussion: No-one is denying parts of this article read completely like a gameguide. However, there are also numerous sections which are well sourced and provide relevent real world information (as I mentioned in an earlier post, the Greek Human Land Units - with more citations - is a good example of this). These are what the article should be saved for. For 90% of the units on this page, information regarding the character's historical and mythological basis can be found. In this regard, the article has much potential. My point being: Please do not use the argument "Reads like a gameguide" to support deletion. I have nothing against users debating relevent issues such as notability. However, the gameguide argument does not stand, as the article is much more than this; WP:WIGAD; as well as the fact that All Gameguide material and cruft would be removed in any decent clean up. Quickly, my two cents on notability - the game sold over a million copies; the units were the first in the series to be presented with any historical/mythological accuracy - other than this, notability is debatable. Iciac (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my stance. Yes some gameguide material has crept into the article, but overall the list does not constitute a gameguide. That stuff needs cleanup, not deletion. Let's say there's an article on a particular game. If someone came along and inserted something about how to beat a boss, would you immediately nominate it for deletion? No! I understand all the other arguments, just not this one. Iciac's put it nicely. The list has potential. The list is even very good in places. This article needs tender loving care, and not be banished to the endless void. --.:Alex:. 13:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge the lead All those saying that the article just needs cleanup—please clean the article then. That will be sufficient proof that there is salvagable material. As it stands now, it looks to me like there won't be enough left for an article once the over-detailed or game guide material is removed. Pagrashtak 13:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete This article's qualities are virtually identical to the one for Dawn of War which was transwiki'd here and deleted from WP[2] some time ago. Similarly, the AOM article is a nicely-formatted and well-written game guide, and should be copied off to a gaming wiki, but it is not appropriate content for WP. Ham Pastrami (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was an Age of Empires one as well wasn't there, with exactly the same style. That got transwikied as well if I remember correctly, though I can't find the AfD for it. -- Sabre (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If transwikied, then we should soft redirect to the transwikied site due to this article being a legitimate search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki retaining backlinks to Wikipedia entries. I'm almost split on either keep or delete with this. On one hand, it is basically the type of information that WP:GAMEGUIDE asks to avoid - information that basically is only of value to the player of the game and not to the non-gamer reader - but that said, the historical context of the names of the units are certainly not trivial and can be linked as given, and the quality of the article is good; I don't think there is any need for this article to show notability as it is a supporting article of the main AoM article. However, I think we've set in motion how such articles should be handled via "Weapons of Resident Evil 4"; all real-world weapons or objects that could be linked to non-game Wikipedia topics, but effectively still a game guide. Keeping this while arguing for the removal of RE4 weapons seems awfully hypocritical, so my vote has to go to delete, but this information should certainly not be lost. Transwiki the content to a Age of Mythology wiki (create one at Wikia if not already done), and use interwiki mapping to link back the key terms. Then, in the main body of the article, include examples of how all the units are based on historical and mythological entities to give a flavor for this. This, to me, is exactly where the benefit of external wikis comes into play, allowing us to maintain a standard on WP, but ultimately still allowing for this great information to be linked in from somewhere as close to transparent to the end user as possible. --MASEM 15:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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:NOT#GUIDE. 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) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is not merely a list of units of the game. It contains several paragraphs from secondary souces discussing the units in out of universe context. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though some of it does start to read like a game-guide I don't see a problem overall. The article does a pretty good job of discussing the units outside the in-game universe, and there's some fairly decent sources. While bits could probably use cleanup I don't think this fails any relevant policies - particularly WP:NOT#GUIDE that keeps getting linked to, which basically doesn't even mention this type of article. ~ mazca t | c 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonable spinout article per WAF. Also well written and well sourced. The relationship of the game's units to the roles they played in history and myth is quite nice. Hobit (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete; insufficient sourcing for what is effectively gameguide material; the historical material does little other than repeat information from other articles; there's little reason why it can't be moved somewhere else, though. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep, actually, for now, this might work with some decent sources, such as reviews, but still reads too much like a game guide. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no reason to have this type of information listed for games. It is not encylcopedic, no matter how well-sourced it may be. WP:NOT#GUIDE prevails here. Addionne (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is an invalid reason for deletion and there are actually plenty of reasons to have this type of information (editors and readers obviously find such reasons or else they would not bother to volunteer their time editing it, reading it, and arguing to keep it. It is consistent with what Wikipedia is and by containing out of universe content cannot legitmately be blanket described as a guide. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake - I should have been more specific. Even with links to non-universe articles, I don't think it meets WP:GAMEGUIDE in terms of usefulness to non-players of the game. Now that I look at it, the majority of sources are game guides or fansites, etc, which in my opinion are questionable in their ability to assert notability. Those that aren't only serve to show notability of the game itself, and not a list of its units. Addionne (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citing game guides no more makes us a game guide than citing scholarly journals makes us a scholarly journal of original research rather than an encyclopedia. For video games, strategy guides are reliable sources and when used in conjunction with second party reviews as in this case of this article, the game guide argument diminishes. The article provides a useful navigational function as well as the units used are real world in nature. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is necessary to comprehensive coverage of the game and is too large to be included in another article. Everyking (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick mention to those who have voted Keep to this article. I invite you to add to the article, even if only the history for a single unit. If you have the game, use the in-game encylopaedia to find the thing it is based on, as some are ambigious (ie, the Carcinos>crab in the twelve labours; Man o'War > portuguese man of war). Adding citations to these additions will improve the quality of the article, hopefully raising it above AFD. If the AFD succeeds, you'll have wasted 10mins adding this information sure - but this information may save it. Also, information concerning character conception could be found within "The making of Age of Mythology DVD" and would add another level to the article - if anyone has it of course. Iciac (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This indiscriminate nature of this list is what I have pointed out in my opinion above. Why link Carcinos to crab (For mythological connection, sourced?), Man o' War to an organism colony (Biological? Sourced?), destroyer to a warship (a building to a warship?), etc? Arcus is linked to a disambiguition page, and the dictionary definiton defines it as a minor medical condition (a unit to a medical condition?). Does the list need to repeat "Caravan" six, seven times? Do readers need to link to spearman, axeman, villagers, and other dictionary definitions? What exactly determines that the names need to be linked? Despite rewording the Nereid description, it is still a game-guide material. The key crux of the game-guide material is "why should this list teach players how to use the units, e.g. this unit is best used against that, this is the only unit that can counter air for this side, etc." I have yet to touch on the implication of such wording stating a superiority of a historical unit over another simply based on game terms. Can this be weeded from the article? Perhaps, but it certainly would not help the list in being discriminate if every unit is listed without regards to its significance. Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the article is indiscriminate. The Atlantian (human units) and cheat units have no actual historical basis, and really shouldn't be in the article. Your idea of a "Mythological history" article is a great idea. However, certain terms in the article such as "infantry/archer/seige unit do need to be in the mentioned; including a small mention of any special features of that unit (ie bonuses) - if only to describe the unit in relation to the game. I agree though that without any other information it does become game-guidelike. As for a historically based unit having superiority over a completely fictional unit - the only real notability of the units in this game is the fact that most are individually based on historical soldiers/mythology; without such I'd argue for deletion. As for the linking - of course some link to the wrong page (destroyer being a good example); they are the result of quick edits, where users haven't checked where they linked to. To the statement about the Carcinos and the Man o'War - I think they were mentioned as such in the in-game enyclopaedia, although I haven't seen it for a long time. You have some great points about the discrimination, and I invite you to remove anything you feel shouldn't be in the article. Cheers :) Iciac (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though fictional characters, events, places or other things usually should not have their own articles in Wikipedia, this is the exception due to the abundance of content and compliance with WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR; any veteran Age of Mythology series players know them, thus needing no inline citations to the game on the article. In my opnion, a particular fictional character or thing can have its own article if it meets one of the conditions:
  1. Due to the over-abundance of the main article (while not violating the four policies mentioned above).
  2. Mentioned on the front cover alone on non-fiction related magazines or journals.
  3. A certain proportion of people study it.
  4. Mentioned in more than one fiction (to avoid duplication).

--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every article on Wikipedia should be accessible by all. If an article is written for "veteran Age of Mythology series players", then something is terribly wrong with the article. We do not write for the fans or the veteran players, we write so that everyone may understand what is being talked about and can be verified by all, be it fiction, game material, science, history or any other subject covered on this site. Inline citations are necessary for those who have not played the game, what is good for the players of the game is irrelevant. -- Sabre (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sabre is right. Those four criteria may be your opinion, but they are not compatible with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If we were to extend your argument, we wouldn't have inline citations anywhere, because surely an expert on the topic of any given article would know the information, right? Pagrashtak 18:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion, however. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So where is anyone there saying they don't like the subject? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)#[reply]
The editor I am replying to cited an essay with "cruft" in the title as a basis for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not cite it as a basis for deletion, I'm not even arguing for deletion. It was cited because it helps define cruft and outlines that Wikipedia should not be written for the fans or the experts, but for all. Actually bother to read the comment properly next time as opposed to going "someone use "cruft"? Oh noes!!!111! Must spam anti-cruft terminology messages needlessly". -- Sabre (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to read that you are not arguing for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure, it is neat and interesting. It is also a blatant and glaring violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. Transwiki? sure. But it has no business being here. Trusilver 03:30, 5 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_units_in_the_Age_of_Mythology_series&oldid=1136109920"