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

Comment: As I said in the last AfD, this is just a gameguide (#GUIDE) that doesn't further the understanding of the series or the individual games (). 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. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:GAMECRUFT)

Comment: This is a GameFAQs article.  It doesn't even pretend to be an encylopedia article.  Delete this |game guide
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGUIDE)

Comment: pretty clear per . This kind of content belongs more properly on a fan site, not in an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:GAMECRUFT)

Comment: Wikipedia is |not paper. And #PLOT 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 List of Soul Eater episodes|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" , then  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER||WP:NOT||WP:GAMECRUFT||WP:GAMECRUFT)

Comment: per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and Wikipedia: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 , Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Verdatum&diff=176061328&oldid=169950712.  Plenty of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enemies_in_The_Legend_of_Zelda_series&action=history effort to improve this valid http://stats.grok.se/en/200805/The%20Legend%20of%20Zelda%20series search term that readers come here for.  Meets
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSCRUFT)

Comment: as this fails , #GUIDE, and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:NOT||WP:GAMECRUFT)

Comment: 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  and  allow
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:V)