Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosses in The Legend of Zelda series


 * 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. Jbeach sup 20:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bosses in The Legend of Zelda series

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced in-universe information. A list of bosses in a game is a collection of indicriminate information. &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's a list of boss characters, with info about their roles and such. Yes, gamecruft keeps getting in, but the regular editors work to remove it and keep the article focused on the plot info. As for sourcing - untrue, we use info from the Zeldapedia, quotes from the games, etc. The project is in the middle of a lot of work, and we are trying to find all the references we need to. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant reliable, outside world references. Quotes from games have low accessibility and are in-universe, and wikis are generally considered unreliable, seeing as anyone can edit them. &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: What KrytenKoro said. Knowitall 10:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per KrytenKoro Thanks, Codelyoko193  Talk Contributions  12:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete — useless fan cruft; blatant vio of WP:V. -- Agüeybaná  14:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep looks to be an encyclopedic treatment of the material, complete but concise and doesn't include extraneous information like strategies used to defeat each boss, how many hits it takes to kill them, etc. If better sourcing is needed, the Zelda series has quite a number of published guides, just take a quick look on Amazon or any bookstore. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it flies in the face of WP:FICT, then defecates on it. Axem Titanium 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)\
 * There are many results for verifiable sources talking about the bosses. We are sorry that material hasn't been refed yet, but we are quite busy with the Phantom Hourglass articles, and other edit wars that keep going on. This subject does in fact have notability, it's just that the refs have yet to be pointed out, so this needs to be fixed instead of deleted. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All I see are various comments that there are bosses; there doesn't appear to be critical commentary. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any long commentary on the bosses alone, but for PH alone, they are mentioned variously as "engaging", "inventive" "not tough", and a few on how how the bosses are used is traditional in the series. ("Zelda titles frequently follow a close formula --enter dungeon, find specific object or weapon, use it to kill boss, repeat-- and Phantom Hourglass sticks ...", "and it's clear that Konami designed them while borrowing techniques from a series renowned for grand boss fights: The Legend of Zelda.", "Of course, that sand is kept in dungeons by bosses, so if you played a Zelda game before, you know what you have to do from that point.") They don't provide much info on creation, no, but we would have to get that from the creators (or the retrospectives on the collector's edition disc and at the front of some of the guides). However, these characters are notable, and are talked about in many of the articles about the games, which should satisfy WP:N. WP:V can be done according to Zelda.com, or in-game quotes, as well as the odd news article, and the creation section would only require someone to do some digging to create. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And would one paragraph of out of-universe info on the reception of bosses in the games merit the giant list we have before us? Really, unless specific commentary, such as how these bosses were created or designed, et al, can be found, I highly doubt the relevant bits couldn't be merged.  David Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - no out of universe perspective on why it is notable. Fails WP:FICT. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Trim & Merge into appropriate lists. -- Jelly Soup 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Zeldapedia--Victor falk 19:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki If we can find outside sources for specific bosses that lets them reach notability requirments, we can make that article for that boss. But most of these guys aren't important, other than justbeing a big fight. Very few of them have actual plot or story significance, and they have next to no 3rd party sources. The idea that Phantom Hourglass is interfereing with finding sources doesn't make sense to me, considering how long this article has been around. The only reason I hadn't already put it up for deletion was because I figured it would get snowballed, like the characters page. DurinsBane87 22:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki or Delete this is pure unadulterated gamecruft. WP:NOT a game guide.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 16:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because The Legend of Zelda is one of the most notable game series and bosses are integral aspect of video games. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the bosses as a whole are. But is a list of every boss in every game? David Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From the guidelines I've read, only the subject of the article needs notability to be included - if characters are notable as a set, then they can be talked about both as a set and individually on their page. Like FFVIII - together, the characters are highly notable, but only a few are notable by themselves. However, that's why we have lists of characters, is to be able to cover them still.
 * As for my claim about TPH - I don't know why sources were never looked up before, as I've tried asking others to help do it while they were reorganizing the page, and I've tried to look for some of the info myself. However, I'm not very good at finding creation info, so I can't do it alone, and there's lots of other pages that I'm working on that are in much worse shape.
 * About the third-party sources - the guidelines only require that third-party sources exist, not that they be the bulk of the article. So long as we can establish notability and outside commentary, which I belive I have showed we can, and we demonstrate that in the article, we can spend the rest of the time using first-party sources, as long as they are described out-of-universe style. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki and delete- The article has no independent notability outside of the Zelda games, and as such should be transwikied and deleted. Judgesurreal777 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a sub-article, which doesn't need fully independent notability. It is talked about by reliable, verifiable sources, and though by its nature it cannot be seperated from the series, it satisfies the requirements for an acceptable sub-article. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ehrm.. to quote myself: There is not such thing as a subarticle. All articles on Wikipedia are created equal, with the right to pursue happiness, liberty and featured article status, and to slily imply that there is such a thing as an Unterartikel is to the promote the wikiracist agenda of the cabal who seeks to undermine and corrupt the...--victor falk 04:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then logically, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII should never have made featured. Or how so much of the FF project made "featured topic" - because subarticles are included. I never said this article cannot achieve featured status - merely that it is silly to require that it be notable while entirely separate from TLoZ, since many featured articles have not had that requirement. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any place that indicates that Characters of Final Fantasy VIII are subarticles, when we don't even have subarticles. The various articles in the FF project made featured due to the quality of the work put into them, not because other stuff exists. -- Jelly Soup 02:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where "Other stuff exists" comes in - Characters of FFVIII made featured status, which makes it a perfect thing to compare fiction articles against. It too is a list of characters in a game, and yes, this article needs a lot of cleaning up, but that is not why it was nominated for deletion - it was nominated for being an "innapropriate subject for wikipedia", and yet an article with an analogous subject made featured. I fully agree that the article needs to be cleaned up, that creation and criticism sections need to be added, that "cultural impact", if we can find it, needs to be included, that reffing needs to be done, etc...but so does every fiction article that isn't already perfect. I have demonstrated why, to my understanding, this article is acceptable material for Wikipedia to cover - whether it is in satisfactory shape is another question, and one that is solved by work, not deletion. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This article was nominated for deletion because, as is, it violates WP:A, WP:FICTION and WP:NOT. Saying that every other fiction article needs the same thing as this article doesn't protect THIS article from deletion. If you agree that the article needs work and can be fixed, I would suggest you devote some energy to that task. -- Jelly Soup 18:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I've shown how it doesn't violate WP:A (news articles, game magazines, Zelda.com), Fiction (It is a sub-article for a notable subject, that in fact has aspects of its own notability), and is not an indiscriminate list (it covers boss characters, mentions how they interact with the storyline, and condenses sections into a critique as much as currently possible). Yes, it needs to be improved, and yes, I am working on it - I've been doing it for a long time, and trying to get others to help me. But the problems it has are the kind we put up tags for, saying "please work on this problem", not "this page needs to be deleted". Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also:
 * "If these concepts are individually notable and an encyclopedic treatment causes the article on the work itself to become long, then the concepts are split into succinct sub-articles that maintain such an encyclopedic treatment. However, material should be organized into complete articles and presented correctly; the existence of numerous small sub-articles can lead to disorganization and unbalanced coverage."


 * Keep as the boss characters are just as notable as a set as say the page on the recurring minor characters in TLOZ series, the Zelda weapons page, the enemies page, etc. To say it has no independent notability outside of the Zelda games goes for just about all of the Zelda articles that are not the series page, tv show page, or a specific Zelda game title page.172.168.177.94 04:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Other crap exists is not a valid argument. DurinsBane87 03:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that the boss page has just as much notability to exists as a majority of these other pages dealing with minor characters, weapons, races, etc. from Zelda. If the boss page is nominated for deletion because it doesn't live up to Wikipedia's standards due to having "no independent notability outside of the Zelda games" as Judgesurreal777 stated, then every one of these articles should also be nominated for deletion for the same reason.172.134.38.103 05:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe that should happen, maybe it will. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. DurinsBane87 07:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless the article can be improved and the in-universe style removed, then I vote Transwiki Mandanthe1 07:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Either Cleaned up and Kept or Merge with Enemies of the Zelda series article. Unknown Dragon 04:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, but Transwiki if left unimproved. Haipa Doragon (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2007 (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.