Deletion of List of units in the Age of Mythology series

Comment: Judging by recent AfD nominations (like the ridiculous BK locations one), it seems people are forgetting what a  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE)

Comment: 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 , 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 (, ) 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:IINFO||WP:VGSCOPE||WP:NOTGUIDE)

Comment: 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  (although this is pretty borderline) and since it doesn't get bogged down in plot details it doesn't fail . So the real problem is . In my mind, '''THIS''' is the article I think of when I look for an  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE||WP:PLOT||WP:N||WP:IAR)

Comment: 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 , ,  and ; 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: 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.  #GUIDE prevails here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 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 #GUIDE that keeps getting linked to, which basically doesn't even mention this type of article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: This violates #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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 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 #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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The only difference between this list of units and any other list of units (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War series|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 #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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: more or less  material. Past the historical context, it's a list of units, and it's not appropriate per . Aside from that, no adequate notability asserted per significant coverage of the topic in |reliable sources independent of the topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGUIDE||WP:VGSCOPE||WP:RS)