Deletion of List of units in the Age of Mythology series (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE)

Comment: My opinion on the article is largely unchanged from the previous AfD; it provides far too much detail  () 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:VGSCOPE)

Comment: What doesn't consist of redundant factoids about history, legend, and mythology violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGUIDE)

Comment: per Wikipedia:Merge and delete and  (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  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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_units_in_the_Age_of_Mythology_series&diff=270522425&oldid=270317752 tagged this article for rescue on the 13th, and apparently one of the deletes occurred after being asked by another editor to in effect http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sephiroth_BCR&diff=prev&oldid=270479675 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:FICT||WP:AGF||WP:ITSCRUFT)

Comment: per AMiB, it's essentially game guide material wrapped up in references irrelevant to the context. Fails . I also agree with Zxcvbnm on not seeing where a redirect helps, but I'd be fine with that result as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:VGSCOPE)