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. --- RockMFR 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, fan cruft and lacking notability Knowitall (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup -- a whole bunch of stuff just got AfDed and merged into this article.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: btw, nom has been adding "unsourced fancruft" to this article since mid-October -- why nominate it now?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Very, very weak. The main article is way to long as it is, and this stuff is mildly important to the (notable) game, so... - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as the first comment. --.Tom. (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (although I'm a Zelda fan). Fact is, this article does not establish its topic's notability, and I cannot see how it will be anything else than a WP:GAMEGUIDE. These enemies are just "there" in the game. You kill them and that's it. They don't further the game's plot. It doesn't matter if you kill a Octorok or a Peahat, the game would still be the same. So you don't need to know about all these enemies to understand what Zelda is about. It would be much better to have one or two sourced paragraphs about these enemies in the gameplay section in the main article than this list. – sgeurekat•c 10:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up... an appropriate sub-article for the Zelda series to summarize this information. Pinball22 (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - per Pinball22; a valid resource for the larger article on the game series. ◄Zahakiel► 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sub-articles covering fictional topics are sometimes appropriate, but "[e]ven these articles need real-world information to prove their notability" (WP:FICTION). Without out-of-universe information from independent sources (covering things like how these enemies were invented, or what game reviewers thought of them), the article fails notability guidelines. EALacey (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Zelda players may wish to have an exhaustive list of all the game enemies, but this information belongs on a fansite or Zelda-themed wiki. For a general audience this entire article could be better summarized as "In the Legend of Zelda games, players fight a variety of enemies". There is nothing to indicate that any of these enemies are noteworthy due to innovative design or influence on other games. If any of these enemies are truly notable then a concise paragraph with sources in the main article should be sufficient coverage. CKarnstein (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Sgeureka. The enemies aren't really notable and the article is like a game guide. The bosses article is slightly different as some of them have an impact on the storyline in some way, but enemies don't. .:Alex:. 16:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid information, stuff people will look for, possible to find publications discussion such enemies(though sourcing the article as it is currently written would be hard). This smells like a nomination to prove a point, but I don't know that. i kan reed (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Materials from plot must be in articles that have real-world relevance. An article purely on elements from the plot of a game that do not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is not notable. See WP:PLOT, WP:N. Subdolous (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure plot repetition, keepers must demonstrate real world coverage and notability per WP:FICTION to justify keeping. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN fancruft. --Slartibartfast1992 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, weak keep. Some of these characters, like the Stalfos, are fairly iconic. Admittedly, I haven't found much real-world information, but I suspect that any such info would be printed in video game magazines, which aren't conveniently archived at Lexis, Factiva, or Newsbank. An alternative would be to merge some of the long-running enemies into a general list of Zelda characters. Zagalejo^^^ 02:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On second though, merging to Races is probably best, seeing as how Deku Scrubs are in there, and in some Zelda games like Ocarina of Time, Deku Scrubs ARE an enemy. Matty-chan 15:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - however, "Races" is aimed at the sentient races that possess sentience, etc. While some of these have been antagonists, it is not meant to be a general "species".Not even Mr. Lister'sKoromon survived intact. 16:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is factual and many characters (Like Moblins and Octorocks) are notable to the Zelda series. ZordZapper 04:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely in-universe content that fails to assert notability per WP:FICT. Eusebeus 13:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - there has been a draft for a rewrite in my userbox for a while, but interest died pretty quickly. This page does need the sourcing demanded by others, but it is not likely to get it unless people step up. Personally, I don't have the resources, though I might suggest shifting the focus from simply recurring enemies to enemies that are particularly important in the games, such as the Phantom or Shadow enemies, and possibly covering some of the "perfect attendance" enemies like Octoroks or Stalfos. I would also suggest that those voting keep spend some time to look for the sources needed, and compile them on the talk page, so we can do a write-up. Thank you.Not even Mr. Lister'sKoromon survived intact. 16:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an appropriate way to organise material, complementary to the main article. If the characters as a whole are notable, the article is--the individual onjes dont have to be--and this is a lot better than indefensible small articles on each of them. DGG (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.