Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemies 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   keep. Wizardman 12:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Long list of enemies, fails WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:GAMECRUFT. No assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage from reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to satisfy WP:NOTE. Sephiroth BCR ( Converse ) 06:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 06:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As I said in the last AfD, this is just a gameguide (WP:NOT) that doesn't further the understanding of the series or the individual games (WP:GAMECRUFT). Most of the enemies aren't notable within the game, so forget real-world notability. Any relevant info can fit into two paragraphs in the franchise article or the gameplay sections of individual games. – sgeureka t•c 07:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As much as I love the Zelda series, this article is crap. And it is MASSIVE, yet only has FOUR sources....Knowitall (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as repository for worthwhile information on notable game. The reason this article exists is essentially because of all the other enemy articles that were merged with it as the "proper" place for this information.  Ford MF (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It had a chance to improve and it didn't. It's only gonna become a problem once again. I stated my main reasons on the talk page of the article in question. -- .: Alex  :.  11:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "It had its chance" is not a rationale for deletion. Ford MF (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete.The entire article is supported by four refs, pure cruft. Some sections are simply just a main tag. Gears  Of War  13:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GAMECRUFTOroso (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't helpful, nor is it policy. Your vote is nothing more than WP:CRUFTCRUFT SashaNein (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a guideline. Despite your opinion about the word "cruft", the guideline itself indicates this article is inappropriate for wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unfortunately no effort was made to clean up this article and make it more encyclopedic. Some of this was my fault. It consists almost entirely of in-universe information and almost no referencing. Changed to Keep, per my creation of this. If you have time, please help improve and expand it. Artichoker[talk] 14:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: Fails to meet the general notability guideline because there are no reliable sources independent of Zelda/Nintendo that cover this list of enemies. Also fails to meet the specific guidelines under WP:GAMECRUFT #5 and #6. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yet again it is necessary to note that lists such as this one are considered adequately sourced if the parent topic is sourced, thus, the article does meet WP:N. McJeff (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem: Incorrect. See WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Notability of each article should be assessed on its own merits. Also see the first plank of the video game guidelines on inappropriate content and the WP:GNG for how to assert notability in general. Randomran (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is a list and is not subject to AVOIDSPLIT. McJeff (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. None of these enemies are notable outside the games themselves. The Prince (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Neutral. Seeing as the article/list has improved greatly, with real-world content added, I strike my oppose. However, I still don't see the necessity of the article. The Prince (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep per Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world). "Cruft" is never a valid reason for deletion per WP:ITSCRUFT, Cruftcruft, Cruftcruft, and .  Plenty of effort to improve this valid search term that readers come here for.  Meets What Wikipedia is.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Honestly, I don't know what to do with this article. We tried trimming it down to the "traditional enemies", and those that were important to the plot, and that came up with an AFD, and doing it comprehensively also brings up an AFD. I'm going to do a few searches for reviews, etc., see what I can find, and put them on the article talk page - however, I am completely certain that they exist, they just need to be added to the article. Plenty of them, such as the Dodongo's (though admittedly, that's from that crazy Old Man) or Keese, have become "icons". A lot of sourcing could also be done by using the in-game or official site bio's, to lessen the "OR" factor. Pre-release Nintendo Power's or gaming mag's would also be very useful, as we could use them for design information. I will try to look through my few copies, and see what I can find. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, partly per Le Grande Roi's arguments as per the articles validity of WP:LIST, and per the rationalization that WP:ITSCRUFT should never be a valid deletion argument. I will also make the following points in favor of keep.
 * Citing article quality is also not a valid reason for deletion. This is why cleanup exists in the first place.
 * While the article does have "excessive detail in a specific area of interest", which does technically meet the definition of cruft, the cruft can be deleted without the article itself being deleted.
 * The size/source ratio can again be remedied by reducing the list to only the most notable enemies in the series. Say, the ones from the original LoZ, as well as those that have become series staples, such as chuuchuus.
 * "No one's working on it" has also been discounted as a valid argument for deletion per WP:NOTCLEANUP.
 * There is already a rescue tag on the article, and I strongly recommend that the people pushing for deletion give the article a chance to be cleaned up. I personally removed a huge amount of stuff from the page (24K bytes worth to be exact), and given 3 or 4 days, I could probably reduce the article to one third its current size without removing one more monster from the list. McJeff (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:LIST is a style guideline - nothing in it speaks to the validity of an article in relation to a deletion discussion, and it focuses entirely on how to make a list. Attacking the word "cruft" is a red herring, as WP:GAMECRUFT is a guideline, and you're missing the point entirely. And in the end, even having the "most notable" monsters in the list is irrelevant so long as there is no critical coverage. Save this, which is more appropriate for the reception section at The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, as the context of the coverage is entirely on The Minish Cap rather than the series as a whole, no other sources constitute critical coverage or are valid (online sources that require you to pay for a submission in order to access them aren't valid, as other people have to be able to verify the information from the source). And regardless of the question of notability, the article is in clear violation of what is pointed out at WP:GAMECRUFT, and thus the consensus view pointed out by the Video game WikiProject. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 02:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, WP:GAMECRUFT seems to support the existence of this article. In particular, concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting.  McJeff (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In the context of a notable article - it refers to a plot summary in the article about the game or a specific character, not an entire article with nothing but plot summary, which is a violation of WP:NOT. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 05:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that your interpretation of NOT#PLOT is incorrect. Again, it says, a concise plot summary is appropriate.  This article is (or should be) a concise summary of an aspect of the plot of the games, spun out to reduce article size.  Spun-out articles can in fact inherit notability from the parent topic, per what is said at WP:INHERITED Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums. McJeff (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A concise plot summary, again, in the context of a notable article. It does not give you a blank check to make a non-notable article. See WP:AVOIDSPLIT, which stresses that the spinout articles must prove their own individual notability. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 05:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course that one section would be primarily on TMC - no critical source is just going to make sweeping generalizations without specific sources. If we can save the article, that source is meant to be used as a "retrospective" type section, which would cover how they've been recieved over the lifetime of the series. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources
 * mentions Dodongo, but I can't access it.
 * Well wouldn't you simply need to register? Never mind, apparently you need to pay $2.95 in order to do so. Artichoker[talk] 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is also a pay-per-view site, but mentions enemies.Can we use ppv sources?
 * Subscription sources that require a free trial:, ,.
 * From N-sider The Minish Cap looks to use an upgraded version of the GBA Four Swords engine. The games look nigh identical, from both a technical and artistic standpoint, though The Minish Cap is sporting a lot of extra detail in certain departments. The backgrounds are just a lot prettier, for starters, and character/enemy animations are really quite superb. Enemies die in very animated puffs of smoke, and the boss featured in the demo dungeon features a good amount of sprite-scaling. One of the coolest visual treats, though, is just having the opportunity to see new 2D enemy designs in the Four Swords art style. Enemy designs have been pretty much identical in both style and type in every 2D Zelda game since Link to the Past, even including Four Swords Adventures on the GameCube. The Minish Cap enemies are delightfully original, looking much more detailed and animated.


 * These sites (,, , and ) have some stuff, but I have to give my e-mail address to use it, and my e-mail account isn't working right now. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From cnn.com:

''"Ocarina of Time" also introduces a new gameplay element. Navi, the main character's guardian fairy and travelling companion, will assist by giving you information, warning of danger and giving combat hints when battling enemies.''
 * From gamepro.com: Enemy weapons can be picked up (by you or by other enemies), pieces of armor can be knocked off, and key items can be yanked away with your grappling hook.


 * From :

''After playing the import version of The Wind Waker for a week straight, we would have to agree with Miyamoto on all accounts. Only a few hours into the game, any lingering concerns about the Saturday-morning graphics melted away, replaced by awe at the bright, gorgeous world, fluid movement, and myriad ways Link interacts with his surroundings. When Link gets hurt, he really looks like he's in pain. When he gets tired, you can see the exhaustion in his face. When he's trying to be sneaky, he's got the sly squint of a thief on the prowl. And it's not just him--everyone (friends and enemies) and even a few things (fire, smoke, explosions, trees) have a similarly impressive range of possible interactions and animations.''

But enough about the graphics...

''Whatever it looks like, the core gameplay of Zelda is rock solid--The Wind Waker is definitely a Zelda game. Like the evolution from Mario 64 to Mario Sunshine, The Wind Waker takes the basic system and controls of the Nintendo 64 Zelda titles and improves on them, adds to them, and mixes them up a bit. The result is a game that will feel familiar to fans of the series, but new at the same time.''

''Take dungeons: As in every Zelda game, you still explore a series of caverns in The Wind Waker. You still find one important item (boomerang, bow and arrows, etc.) in each stage, still find keys to unlock doors, still solve puzzles, and still fight bosses. But a few new abilities expand upon these traditional aspects. As Miyamoto says, "Zelda has always been based on the player thinking things through--figuring out puzzles and moving into the next room. We've tried to focus on ways to improve that." For example, now that you can pick up and use or throw enemy weapons, you might have to smash open a doorway with an enemy's oversized sword, or toss a lit staff to burn down another blocked passage. Or sneak past guards by hiding under a barrel. Or use a giant leaf to blow moving platforms along. Or take control of another character to cooperate on activating two switches at once. And that's just a small taste of what the game has to offer. Plenty of surprises await even the most diehard Zelda veteran--just take a look around this preview for more examples.''

Artichoker[talk] 00:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, good job! Ford MF (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's perfectly good information that probably wouldn't fit well in any other article. Everyking (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - IT is long since time to delete this article, it has been a while ago and has shown no improvement since there is no information that would make this notable and justify a whole article on this subject. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline and WP:NOEFFORT is just a call for SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not a list of characters; it's a list of obstacles. It is not the job of Wikipedia to exhaustively catalogue every object in a fictional work; indeed, such work vastly exceeds what WP:NOT and WP:V allow. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the job of Wikipedia to exhaustively catalog as much of human knowledge as possible. The article is consistent with what Wikipedia is and is verifiable.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I linked WP:V and WP:NOT. If you'd like more-specific links, here's WP:NOT and WP:NOT. Wikipedia's capacity may be functionally unlimited, but its scope is not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, in spite of this article being "flagged for rescue", no decent sources have been added. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't know about Artichoker, but I have intermittent internet access, and also have to take care of two children during most of the day. I'm working on it and looking for usable sources as fast as I can. Maybe if more than two editors would help out, we might have gotten more "decent" sources written in by now. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes sorry, this page slipped my mind yesterday, but I'll try to do some work on it today. Artichoker[talk] 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have much time to research due to school, but I did a search on Moblin. Apparently, "moblin" isn't trademarked, because there's an enemy type in Final Fantasy XI called Moblin, and some sort of cellular phone deal both called moblin.  I have a feeling there's something sourcable to work with there if anyone cares to follow up what I started. On the other hand, I did the same search on goriya and octorok, got nothing.  McJeff (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup a bit. Zelda is a long-spanning series with enough enemies that reoccur between entries to deserve this article, but it needs some better sourcing.-ABigBlackMan (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - its a list and sourcing (and out of universe material) should be ok on the parent article alone. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but trim considerably. I would hope that a more modest and appropriate article would satisfy people, but I unfortunatly know that some are opposed to this sort of content at all, even for notable fictions. DGG (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a GameFAQs article. It doesn't even pretend to be an encylopedia article.  Delete this game guide.  --Phirazo 01:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then revise it so that it reads better, but not really much reason to outright delete it. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Once you remove the game guide elements, there isn't anything left. This belongs on GameFAQs, not Wikipedia. --Phirazo 14:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WEDONTNEEDIT, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:JNN, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You provide NO valid reasons for deletion. McJeff (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT --Phirazo 14:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * General inclusionist essays don't change the fact that this article is a game guide. --Phirazo 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And it isn't a game guide to begin with, so this whole argument is moot. See also what a guide is.  McJeff (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A direct quote from the article: "Spiked Beetles have spiked carapaces on their topside, and will race at Link if he is within their line of sight. They are invulnerable as long as they are upright, but if the player blocks their charge with his shield, they will be flipped over, exposing their vulnerable undersides." The whole article reads like that. How is that not a game guide?  --Phirazo 16:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be far more reasonable to rewrite the sentance as "Spiked Beetles have sword-repellant spiked carapaces on their top side to protect their vulnerable undersides." Not a game guide anymore.
 * Fixed to remove gameguide information. Artichoker[talk] 18:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Every entry reads like that one though. Even slashed down like that, it is still a game guide entry.  This is a list of enemies and how to defeat them, pure game guide stuff.  --Phirazo 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not anymore, most of them have been majorly trimmed and most of the gameguide information has been deleted. Artichoker[talk] 01:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as this fails WP:NOTE, WP:NOT, and WP:GAMECRUFT. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see some actual reasons for deletion instead of just vague gestures at heavily interpretable policies. McJeff (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are actual reasons. Can you show how this article meets those guidelines? Randomran (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they're not reasons. They might be if the person listing them explained how the article is in violation, but simply naming a policy is meaningless.  None the less, I'll justify why the article should be kept.
 * 1) As the article is a list with a notable parent topic, it does not need to meet WP:NOTE.
 * 2) As per cleanups, the article no longer violates NOT#GUIDE
 * 3) Article's current form is in fully compliance with GAMECRUFT, per the phrase A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting..
 * McJeff (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1.) Summary style is not a free ticket for cruft. 2.) This is a list of enemies, and how to defeat them. 3.) 300-500 words is concise (see Plot summaries). 4,000+ words is not.  I'm sure if this article is kept, it will creep back to 13,000+ words, which is where it was at before the AfD.  Besides, WP:GAMECRUFT, which you claim "full compliance" with, says that "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts" are "beyond the scope of information of Wikipedia articles on video games."  --Phirazo 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing about "lists of gameplay items etc..." was intended to keep things like lists of all available cars out of Grand Theft Auto articles. Not a concise list where notability is demonstrated in the lede.  And I'm sure if this article is kept, it will creep back to 13,000+ words, which is where it was at before the AfD is a pretty falacious argument. McJeff (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the difference between this article and a list of the cars in Grand Theft Auto. You can't claim compliance with WP:GAMECRUFT, since this is exactly the sort of content it discourages.  --Phirazo 12:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't see it, you're not looking hard enough, or you don't want to see it.  McJeff (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Take the assumptions of bad faith elsewhere. It's a list of enemies in a game in which enemies are obstacles, not characters central to the plot. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 05:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The detail in this article is currently excessive, but this article is important in that it effectively identifies and summarizes recurring elements throughout the Zelda series. The introduction is a particularly good summarization. It doesn't have enough sources yet, but there is no question that sources exist. While I would be okay with seeing this content split up and moved to a Zelda-pedia like zeldawiki.org, I think the contribution here is within the scope of an encyclopedia. Dcoetzee 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards keep. The obvious comparison to this article is List of Mario series enemies, which, while not perfect, is in much better shape in terms of how it approaches the enemies list.  I think, from the standpoint of completeness, that there's no reason we can't cover enemies that have appeared in the majority of the Zelda games, such that these can be redirected search terms for those seeking that information.  Note, however, I say "majority"; a spot check shows all these currently qualify for that, so that's not an issue but needs to be asserted to keep the list growth in check and avoid one-time foes.  However, clearly going off the Mario article, each enemy needs one and exactly one paragraph about it: ideally first game it appeared in, a brief description (amalgamating the changes over the games to a single line) and behavior.  There's a lot to cleanup, but if done, this article can properly support the Zelda series article, and thus not need to fully assert notability (the topic being the series), with a decent potential for finding sources for notability later. --M ASEM  20:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, this and a few other articles could be combined for a "Common features/elements of the Zelda series" (I'm looking at Races in The Legend of Zelda series, which really is in bad shape too from this aspect.) --M ASEM 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Those articles are in dire need of cleanup as well, but I think it would be confusing to try and combine them. McJeff (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article has been reduced to one third of its size at the beginning of the AfD following the removal of most-if-not-all gameguide content.  . McJeff (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is still a guide to enemies in The Legend of Zelda, though. --Phirazo 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no? It's a list, not a guide.  McJeff (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a guide. "[In] Ocarina of Time [Biri] will always shock Link if he attacks it with a metal weapon — they can instead be safely attacked using a Deku Stick, Boomerang, or by stunning them with a Deku Nut." --Phirazo 16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Artichoker[talk] 16:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They're all like that, though. I'm just going down the list.  Shall I quote the gameplay mechanics from Bubble?  Even without gameplay mechanics, it is still the sort of article discouraged under WP:GAMECRUFT.  --Phirazo 17:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For that matter, GAMECRUFT is a guideline and not a policy. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. McJeff (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the boilerplate from guideline. My "common sense" tells me Wikipedia would be better off without this article.  This sort of article lowers the overall quality of the entire encylopedia.  It serves as the bad example and justification for dozens of other articles just like it.  This article is not "the occasional exception".  The "occasional exception" is when you need to explain a game mechanic in order to properly explain a game. For example, you need to know how to use the Portal gun to understand Portal, but you don't need to how to steal a car in Grand Theft Auto.  All the reader needs to know is that you can steal cars in Grand Theft Auto.  Similarly, we don't need to go into detail on how to defeat every single monster in the Legend of Zelda.  That is what GameFAQs is for.  A short discussion about how the series has strategic battles and the general themes of enemy characters will suffice.  An exception to the rules should only be made when it makes the encylopedia better.  This article is centered around the "how" of the Legend of Zelda games, not the "what". It does nothing to explain what The Legend of Zelda is, it only describes how to play it. --Phirazo 20:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My "common sense" tells me Wikipedia would be better off without this article. This sort of article lowers the overall quality of the entire encylopedia. It serves as the bad example and justification for dozens of other articles just like it.  Hmm.  So you don't like it.  Now if only I hadn't had to spend the better part of two days wittling down your arguments to get to that core. McJeff (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And you like it. So what?  My liking or disliking this article doesn't invalidate my arguments.  I stand by my statement that Wikipedia is better off without this article and any article that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Besides, you sidestepped the more important question here: Since you seem to agree that this article is discouraged under WP:GAMETRIVIA, why should this article be exempted from those guidelines? --Phirazo 04:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (undent) Please do not utilize strawmen. I am not arguing in favor of all and any gameguide content, I am arguing in favor of this particular article in regards to this particular game primarily because the parent topic - the Legend of Zelda series - is extraordinarily notable within the videogame world, behind only Mario Bros, and of moderate notability world over.  Therefore, it meets WP:N, and don't forget that as a list, it is not subject to the same stringent notability requirements that standalone articles are.
 * Meanwhile, I see almost nothing in any deletionist vote that isn't discouraged under the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - in fact, the only ones that were valid have been addressed and the problems they cited with the article fixed, as seen in the massive amount of cruft removed from the article and the new lede. Meanwhile, you've just added WP:NOGOOD and WP:JNN to the vast list of invalid deletion arguments you've put forward.
 * I don't understand why you're not getting this. Read the article.  It is discriminate, reduced mainly to the creatures appearing in every Zelda game, it is currently relatively well written with many editors working on improving it, and multiple sources to demonstrate notability have been found.  You simply need to get over your dislike of videogame content and acknowledge that the article is perfectly well within wikipedia standards at this current point. McJeff (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The notability of the parent article is entirely irrelevant in this article. It's not a matter of like or dislike, it's a matter of guidelines and policies, which you're dutifully ignoring. The entire article is excessive - it's a list of enemies in a game where the majority of enemies are not important to the plot and don't have to be covered for a reader to understand the game, unlike a list of characters that is more widely accepted as a spinout article for understanding of the plot. This goes into excessive detail on an unimportant part of the series - the enemies - which is only necessary for a player in the series, and thus violates WP:NOT. In any case, it's undue weight on a part of the series that doesn't need to be covered, something that is cited by WP:GAMECRUFT in regards to articles like this. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 05:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I see no reason why it should be deleted, perhaps the article needs a better name, perhaps List of ... ZyMOS (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As per ZyMOS, but need to be cited more in my view. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete - Either merge the relevant content to the series article if an appropriate summary isn't already available or just delete it. There seems to be very little potential for creation or reception information, and there is really nothing to say about any of those single enemies. TTN (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete pretty clear per WP:NOT. This kind of content belongs more properly on a fan site, not in an encyclopedia. Eusebeus (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but maybe change to Commonly Recurring Enemies in the Zelda Series. MuZemike (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Le Grand and DGG, as usual. I do also agree with ZyMOS's suggestion about possibly renaming the article to "List of enemies in The Legend of Zelda series" as per standard naming conventions. Glass  Cobra  23:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. And WP:NOT is disputed, and this isn't a game guide. The Legend of Zelda series is notable, as are the enemies that appear in the series. Are you saying Octoroks and Skulltulas are not notable? Peahats? Moblins? The Legend of Zelda series has sold over 52 million copies. Even if one accepts that only people who played the games in the Legend of Zelda series would be interested in this information, that's at least 52 million people. This list is fine as a sub-article of The Legend of Zelda (series). If there is room on Wikipedia for a list of Soul Eater episodes, surely there is room on Wikipedia for a list of enemies that have appeared in one of the top 15 best-selling videogame franchises of all time. If this list "violates" WP:GAMECRUFT, then WP:GAMECRUFT is wrong, sorry to say. If the article contains no "critical coverage", how about consulting any of the thousands of reviews that have been written about these games and enemies? And saying onlines sources that require you to pay for access aren't valid is absolutely ridiculous. --Pixelface (talk) 11:00, 20 June 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.