Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosses in The Legend of Zelda 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. The large majority of users here seem to be of the opinion that this has too much "game guide-like" content to justify the article. This closure has no prejudice against recreation iff a substantial section can be written dedicated to critical reception (real-life content) and the fictional content is trimmed considerably. If anyone is interested in Transwikiing this, please let me or another administrator know for the page content. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bosses in The Legend of Zelda series
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:GAMECRUFT in the sense that articles about every boss in a series is inappropriate. The WP:CONCISEPLOT that is considered appropriate for Wikipedia can be found in The Legend of Zelda (series), and anything beyond that is simply a violation of WP:NOT. This article also fails WP:V and WP:N for a failure to find reliable third-party sources. Past nomination was closed as no consensus, with several arguments for keep suggesting that this article could be nominated later if improvement turned out to be impossible. Nearly a year later, it is safe to conclude that this article simply cannot meet our policies and guidelines at this time. Randomran (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article has not improved substantially since previous AfD, and the problems still remain. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I doubt this article will ever get anywhere. Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 18:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete but only due to lack of third-party references. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series. It seems like some of the content could be salvageable. MuZemike (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Trim & Merge into appropriate lists, like I said last time. Nothing seems to have improved and the articles remains to be gamecruft. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reliable sources do exist, and I am in the process of adding them. I can add them for the 8-bit games; for later games I would recommend consulting the Prima guides. *** Crotalus *** 00:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We need sources for the IMPORTANCE, not to verify the truthfulness of the information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reputable publishers thought it was worth publishing such material. Besides, notability is not a policy. WP:GAMECRUFT, cited by the nominator, isn't policy either. Adding reliable sources (and I have at least two separate third-party sources in hand, and know of more) is sufficient to meet the requirements of our verifiability policy. *** Crotalus *** 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A reputable publisher? It's the Official Nintendo Player's Guide, it's published by Nintendo themselves. Nintendo can't establish verifiability for their own product. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring specifically to the other guides, which were not official Nintendo products. There's at least one other I know of that could be added, in addition to the Walnum/Eddy and DeMaria books I have already cited. *** Crotalus *** 23:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't seem to understand notability - guides cannot establish notability. That information about bosses appears in a guide that would logically discuss them is nothing special, so at no point does this establish any notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per A Link To The Past, no good third party references. --Banime (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss a merge elsewhere.  The content seems to overlap substantially. Both of them seem to be notable group articles. The question of merging needs a discussion by those who know the fiction, and can therefore be discussed best of the relevant talk pages. DGG (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I would be surprised if these bosses received coverage from non-licensed publications (in other words, independent works from Nintendo). This is the trouble with WP:PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE information: a third party is unlikely to devote significant space to plot recapitulation so we aren't likely to see a magazine article on Gohma, for example.  We are tempted to just say "well the game received some outside attention so it must be ok to cover every level of detail using primary material" but then we get into the same mess that the independent publishers tried to avoid.  We end up with something that looks nothing like a summary of critical discussion and instead looks something like a list of bosses and weaknesses.  This isn't an accident.  It is a result of the type o coverage the material receives.  This is a case in point of why something like WP:N exists.  A redirect to The Legend of Zelda (series) is acceptable but a merger there would clutter up an otherwise good article. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the article. I have already cited two non-licensed third party publications that are reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 04:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read the article, so I assume you mean Walnum (1990) and Demaria (1990). I have no opinion on the former as I have never heard of it before.  The latter is a licensed work.  Prima works with game companies to use the images, maps and terminology they do.  The material they publish is not intellectually independent from Nintendo.  By intellectually independent I mean (and so does WP:N) no stake in the production and no control from the company.  If a magazine decided to do a feature on Twilit Parasite, Diababa for whatever reason, that is independent coverage.  They make that coverage decision for a reason and we follow.  If no one who isn't being paid to write about it risks money and reputation to write something on the subject then Wikipedia shouldn't be the first.  And even if Walnum (1990) is independent, it covers one boss.  I assume that Ganon can probably be sourced, but that doesn't mean that any list which includes Ganon should be included. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Modern Prima works are generally made in cooperation with the company. DeMaria's Nintendo Games Secrets (1990), as far as I can tell, is not. Unlike most of the modern strategy guides, it doesn't have any large full-color maps or licensed artwork, just a couple of B&W screenshots (which would easily constitute fair use). Furthermore, I reiterate again: WP:N is not policy and its application to areas of popular culture in this fashion is extremely controversial. *** Crotalus *** 05:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware both that Notability isn't a policy and that it's application to fiction articles is controversial. That's why I'm not just making an argument as an appeal to policy.  I'm trying to present reasoning why we should take a course of action.  If we accept that WP:N's application to fiction is controversial, that does not immediately lead us to the conclusion that no constraint on coverage of fictional subjects exists save WP:V.  It leads us, at most, to the conclusion that we should hash out an agreeable compromise or (failing that) chart a course that makes sense for the project as a whole if we can't compromise on this article.  So I provided reasons why wikiepdia should not have an article on a fictional subject which isn't covered by secondary sources.  Also, since the controversy about WP:FICT has rendered that an essay with WP:N remaining a guideline, I submit that it is your job to show why this article is "a common sense objection" to that guideline.  As far as the 1990 Prima book, I'm not convinced it was a secondary work completely independent from Nintendo (B/W photos in 1990 could have been a printing consideration).  Nintendo is notoriously jealous of their intellectual property and a game guide is unlikely to present a defensible fair use exemption for printing photos and game material while nintendo is making money from tip hotlines and Nintendo Power.  But, let's just assume that both Walnum (1990) and Demaria (1990) are independent.  That means that bosses from Zelda I and II are covered.  Where are the independent source covering the other subjects of the list?  If they aren't independently notable, where is the independent work listing all of these bosses in one place showing that this is a subject of encyclopedic interest?  For that matter, how do we get material that meets WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:PLOT (both part of WP:NOT, a policy, BTW) if out only sources are gameguides? Protonk (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I recall, many secondary sources were provided in the last AfD discussion, and ample proof was given that the subject is notable, the sources just need to be added to the article. I apologize that I have not done this - I have no skill at such sections, and lately have been more focused on other wiki's. However, the sources exist.
 * If the article is determined to be merged, though, then the recurring bosses section should be moved to the enemies article, and the individual boss lists to the individual game articles. While I appreciate the drive to save info, the "just port it to a zelda wiki" is highly irritating - no one there has asked to receive it, and do you honestly think they don't already have better coverage of the info anyway? I know on the DMC wiki I've run, I've outright deleted articles ported to ours because they were completely redundant. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. In cases like this, comprised primarily of description of fiction, discussion of WP:N is a wearisome distraction from WP:NOT. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I will try to search for some reliable sources in order to salvage this article, but in this article's current state, I would probably recommend a merge. Artichoker [ talk ]  16:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am currently in the process of majorly cleaning up and referencing this article. This article will be improved, and I will help as much as I possible can, so I urge it to be kept. I have already started adding some refs . Artichoker [ talk ]  17:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The people who want to keep it seem to miss the point that the ref problem is no refs establishing notability or importance, not a lack of refs establishing that the article's content is true or not. I want to see refs establishing notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To echo A Link to the Past's concerns, that's exactly it. We can source the facts to the game itself, let alone game guides and instruction manuals. But what WP:N requires is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. We need some objective third-party coverage that can actually offer some critical detail about this, rather than just verifying its existence and telling people to play the game themselves if they want to see it. Randomran (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gamecruft and trivia at best. Move to a Legend of Zelda wiki if necessary. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep article as encyclopedic, but delete this discussion as AfDcruft. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * wat. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think user meant to claim that WP:ITSNOTABLE. MuZemike (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What confused me was the 'AfDcruft' part. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is trivia and game guide material. The bosses have no real world importance, so listing them is unnecessary. The topic itself has no chance of being reformatted to assert encyclopedic value, so this does not need to exist. TTN (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. List of enemies presented in game guide form. It has no chance of improving. The Prince (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can people please stop pulling out the "gameguide" moniker for stuff that has absolutely no guiding whatsoever within it? Gamecruft could be a plausible objection - Gameguide is not. The editors for the article have gone out of our way to remove any shred of "guide"-ness. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The prose of the list is presented as game guide, so whether you like it or not it's game guide. The Prince (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ...no, it's not. It's presented as plot summary. Again, there are problems with the article, such as PLOT and cruft, that need to be worked on. GUIDE is not one of them. And, to think of it, if the article's problem was simply prose as you suggest, wouldn't that call for a copyedit, not delete? At what point did people start arguing that simply not feeling like tidying an article up was appropriate cause for immediate deletion? Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If it a PLOT summary, then it fails WP:NOT, so in either case, the article is full of WP:FAIL. If you want to argue about the validity of using WP:GAMEGUIDE as a reason for deletion under WP:NOT, I suggest either voicing your grievances to the video games WikiProject or initiating a Request for comment on policy/guidelines. Disagreeing with a community-accepted guideline goes nowhere in an AfD discussion. MuZemike (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And apparently, still no one is reading what I posted: That this article is not at all gameguide, so if there is a valid reason to delete the article, this isn't it. Yes, as of right now, too much of the article is plot, and much more real-world info needs to be added. However, that is an entirely separate problem, and it's difficult to see so many prolific editors so committed to casting delete votes without any of the "explain how this policy actually applies" or "does this policy call for deletion". Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And as you pointed out, too much of the article is plot. If it was just a section or a subsection, then I can see keeping and cleaning up. However, the fact that nearly all of the article is like this suggests if anything that the article needs a complete overhaul/rewrite with verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability if it is to be redone, (I'm only talking about the WP:NOT problems; everyone else has driven the notability problems into the ground already.) which is what deletion accomplishes efficiently. MuZemike (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — article is entirely superfluous plot summary and game guide content. No notability asserted in the form of critical coverage by sources independent of the topic. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 03:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read User:KrytenKoro's first comment above. It states that this article is specifically not gameguide, and that makes perfect sense. Him, I, and many other editors have strived to keep this article devoid of any gameguide material. Either you have not read the article, or you confuse the term with gamecruft, which is entirely different. Gamecruft could be an accurate accusation, however, this article contains no text explaining how to beat a boss or guide you through the game. Artichoker [ talk ]  20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article has been thoroughly revived since nomination. The reception section, for example, includes non-plot summary and non game guide content and therefore demonstrates critical coverage in several sources independent of the topic, which means it asserts notability.  The "rationales" for deletion thus seem somewhat dishonest in lieu of the coverage of these characters and their rankings on top lists.  --209.247.22.86 (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't even notice the reception section, which indeed does provide critical coverage of this topic and therefore should help establish its notability. I do recommend this article be kept. Artichoker [ talk ]  20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment — I point those active in this discussion to another discussion I have brought up a while ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources, as it has been noted that the vast majority of sources come from either the video games themselves or from strategy guides. MuZemike (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. What can be said more than that "Wikipedia is not a game manual"? This information has real world context. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't quite understand your reasons for deleting. You say that the information has real world context; wouldn't that be criterion for keeping the article rather than deleting it? Artichoker [ talk ]  22:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Okay, everyone trying to imply that my argument is that the article has no reason to be deleted? Stuff like Magioladitis' comment above is what you need to look at. This is the stuff I've been talking about - NOT that the article is even being suggested as being deleted, but that so many of the arguments for doing so are completely fallacious, flawed, or even against the guidelines for how deletion rationale should be communicated. Not only is the article not in any way "gameguide", but there hasn't even been ANY display of how the article could be considered such. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Game guide material is anything only important within the context of the games. Providing it to the reader here does not help them understand the main game or series in any way. This includes weapons, skill, generic enemies, bosses with no recurring role in the plot, ect. This article does not establish any sort of importance (that reception section is way too light to matter), so it is just a list of minor game elements with no importance. TTN (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you made the common mistake of confusing gameguide with gamecruft; two separate entities. Gameguide details how to accomplish something in a game (an example for this article would be showing how to defeat a boss, which is not mentioned at all in the text). Gamecruft, is more of a general term that includes gameguide and includes what you are talking about. So in conclusion, there is no gameguide material in this article. P.S. Although the reception section may be considered "light", it certainly matters, and gives this article real-world coverage and provides some notability. Artichoker [ talk ]  23:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try expanding it when I get a chance as well. Artichoker [ talk ]  23:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are also arguing that anything that is not an explicit strategy guide for a game shouldn't be deleted. I think that a mix of game specific information on enemies and plot elements fails WP:PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE, even if the whole article is not explicitly either a gameguide or a plot summary. However, even if it doesn't, the article doesn't meet WP:N as noted above. It is six in one hand, a half dozen in the other. Protonk (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I was simply stating the difference between the terms, I am not arguing that it shouldn't be deleted because it doesn't have any gameguide material (after all, it still does contain gamecruft) or else I would have explicitly stated that in my comments. I am simply saying there is no gameguide, nothing more. Please do not put words in my mouth. Artichoker [ talk ]  23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not, that's why I started the sentence with "I think...". If you are looking for agreement that WP:PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE are being thrown around more than their wording might support, you will find it.  I agree.  I think that some of the delete votes should have relfected a real look at the article and noted that it had gameguide and plot material but that it wasn't entirely plot summary or gameguide.  However, I don't consider a failure to do so fallacious.  Nor do I consider an article like this, where removal of PLOT/GUIDE content would leave very, very little, salvageable.  I also assume that the participants have a good idea of what community consensus is about N/PLOT/GUIDE before leaving their opinions here. Protonk (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Correction :) This information has no' real world context. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is a lie, given the reception section and post below. --209.247.22.86 (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: For additional non-plot, non-game guide information, see such sources as this one that even mentions one of the characters on this list prominently and in a critical fashion as the character also appears in a cartoon, or are we arguing it's cartoon-guide, too? Zelda characters have also been made into toys.  "Game"guide cannot be applied to something that concerns games, cartoons, and toys.  In any event, I suggest using such sources to start a section on Other Appearances or Appearance in Other Media, etc. of these characters that indicates their undeniably notable influence and significance in a variety of media.  Also, the reception section can be expanded by quoting some of the comments provided by the non-game guides used to cite that section.--209.247.22.86 (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's WP:GAMECRUFT, it certainly isn't a WP:CONCISEPLOT, which would be difficult to wring out considering the vast majority are non-entities no more worthy of note than the bosses of Alex Kidd in Shinobi World or any other game. Reception information boils down to a throwaway quote about the bosses in general and information on Ganon, which is hardly surprising since he is the series' longstanding antagonist and has his own article because of it. I wouldn't support a merge to the enemies article either since it looks in no better state. Spun-out articles are great when secondary sources support them with significant coverage, and they therefore pass WP:N, but in this case nothing remotely convincing has been presented or is evident in the links in the previous AFD. Someoneanother 00:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - does anyone want to take a look at the reception section now? How critical coverage does it take? Artichoker [ talk ]  01:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Apart from the expanded first sentence, which now states that it's about two bosses out of umpteen, it's all about Ganon, who is a single aspect of the article and is already covered elsewhere. Someoneanother 02:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * GET RID OF IT. This Gamecruft is the type of stuff belongs in a Wikia, which I think there is. If there is, DELETE and TRANSWIKI it to save the information. ZeroGiga (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2008 (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.