Deletion of Bosses in The Legend of Zelda series (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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  and  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  exists.  A redirect to The Legend of Zelda (series) is acceptable but a merger there would clutter up an otherwise good article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT||WP:GAMEGUIDE||WP:N)

Comment: It's , it certainly isn't a , 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 , but in this case nothing remotely convincing has been presented or is evident in the links in the previous AFD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:GAMECRUFT||WP:CONCISEPLOT||WP:N)