Zeldapedia
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Zeldapedia
Zeldapedia
8,033
pages
in: Archive

Zeldapedia:Articles for deletion/Archive 3

< Zeldapedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Green Rupee (talk | contribs) at 06:16, 14 June 2019. It may differ significantly from the current revision.
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
View source
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Weather

I don't know, I kind of find the idea interesting, but not in its current form. --AuronKaizer! 16:11, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. It might be good to have something like this, but the page as it is isn't worth keeping. -Isdrakthül 16:14, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Keep it. But heavily modify it so it meats our standard format.-- C2 / CC 16:15, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Definitely not in its current form. Maybe if majorly change around. I'm mostly against it, though. I think it should be incorporated into other articles. TheMidna™ 16:53, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
  4. I really cant think of any areas this could properly cover Oni Dark Link 17:52, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
  5. The only time in the series weather has much significance is in Oracle of Seasons...and we have pages for the seasons, so pretty much everything noteworthy is already covered. Jedimasterlink (talk) 20:38, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Far too broad of a topic. Something like this would only lead to more confusion than it is worth. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:03, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
  7. whutt izh tihs eye dunt eavin Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 03:03, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
  8. It doesn't work as a general page, really. Some information should be kept, but not here. Also, the weather has a few effects on MM (rain causes Magic Beans to grow), and I think there's a little more in another game..... Naxios10 (talk) 09:21, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
  9. If and when it does play any significance, the info can be put on the respective page. --Birdman5589 (talk) 13:45, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

I made this page, but I had little information on the subject, and I'm not good at formatting and such, so I would appreciate it if someone could fill in the holes.

Nintendo WFC

Yes it was in PH but it could be a quick blurb where it is needed on a different page. Only PH links to it and there are few pages that would need to. With the link on the PH page, earlier in the article it already links to the wikipedia entry for the Nintendo WFC. Anyways, that's just my thoughts. --Birdman5589 (talk) 13:43, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. Agreed -MuzRat (talk) 13:54, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
  2. I concur. -Isdrakthül 15:25, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Yes, out of scope. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 16:40, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
  4. I feel like The End here when I say, "out of scope." --AuronKaizer! 21:49, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Not very Zelda-related... TheMidna™ 22:09, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Not at all necessary. Jedimasterlink (talk) 21:33, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Just created a paragraph for the topic on the PH page. I think that will work. Zeldafan777

Oppose

Comments

Hasn't a multi-player page now been make that includes any important information form this page? --Birdman5589 (talk) 03:02, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I created the Battle Mode page awhile back. On top of that its been over a month since most of these suggestions have had half a dozen supports. They should all be deleted soon Oni Dark Link 14:59, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Texture Pack

This isn't really as much a deletion discussion as a discussion on what to do with stuff like this. --AuronKaizer! 11:18, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. I can't see much use in keeping it myself. It only links to one article. I wouldn't mind saying goodbye to all hack related articles like the Cheat Tunic and such too. Except the Arwing because that's a beta enemy and a cameo too Oni Dark Link 11:27, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
  2. If we included everything similar to this it would be insane. There are tons of little things you can do through emulation and hacking but the only thing that can relate it back to The Legend of Zelda is the fact that it can work on a game in the series. It adds no useful information to the wiki. Like Oni said, there are exceptions like the Arwing but that is few and far between. --Birdman5589 (talk) 13:09, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Not by itself. If we can put the info on some other page, then maybe. TheMidna™ 13:52, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Per Birdman. -Isdrakthül 14:50, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Per Drakky et Birdman et cetera. Jedimasterlink (talk) 03:55, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
  6. If anything this would be a glitch—Triforce 14Triforce4 03:26, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

The Legend of Zelda: The Fallen Sage

A complete fan made project. We have a page for fan games and every thing that needs to be said about it can be said there. There is plenty of fan games just as big as this one if this gets a page then there is no reason why the others shouldn't get one either. I propose deleting the page and moving all he info that needs to be moved to its section on the fan games page Oni Dark Link 13:59, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. Agreed. --AuronKaizer! 14:19, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  2. sure.Hylianhero777 (talk) 14:20, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  3. I concur.-- C2 / CC 15:00, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  4. What the others said. Super duh... AlpacaDoggie Mask 17:23, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  5. —Baltro [ talk · edits ] 17:42, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Agreed. Merge. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 17:46, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  7. MERGE!!! --AmazingLink (talk) 21:46, June 13, 2010 (UTC)AmazingLink
  8. Merge (meaning with the other fan made games, I'm assuming) or delete. TheMidna™ 23:04, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Merge -MuzRat (talk) 13:56, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
  10. I agree on merging.-•=»‡«=•- $Pƒåñ333 -•=»‡«=•- -•=»‡«=•- $Pƒåñ333 -•=»‡«=•- 19:03, October 7, 2010 (UTC) 19:03, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

  1. I'll support this if you support the one above. They are both the same thing, yet nobody seems to want to vote on that one. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 16:53, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Ballad of the Wind Fish

It is a fan made game that has never been completed and isn't even planned on being finished. --Birdman5589 (talk) 23:32, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. From the day this was made, I was debating speedy delete or something. --ϐαςς ᴶαϟϟιJapas Artwork 23:33, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Much like what I say about The Fallen Sage which is still here for some reason Oni Dark Link 23:47, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Agreed, except since this one isn't even complete, it should be deleted outright, not merged. Jedimasterlink (talk) 23:59, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Boing --AuronKaizer! 00:31, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

The Legend of Zelda 3-Poster Series

Iffy... this doesn't necessarily warrant an outright deletion; in fact, an article for merchandise stuff like this is a good idea, but still. At present, this looks bad. --AuronKaizer! 18:48, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. A page for all noteable merchandise might work but I'm doubtful of even that Oni Dark Link 20:35, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, I agree that this should stay (it is official Nintendo merchandise), but it does need some work. TheMidna™ 21:14, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
  3. With editing it should stay, bu not now. --AmazingLink (talk) 21:45, June 13, 2010 (UTC)AmazingLink
  4. Aggree with amazinglink.--Hylianhero777 (talk) 12:22, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Yeah this should be rewritten as part of an official merch page. That would work. -MuzRat (talk) 06:27, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
  6. what the midna said--Ghost Zelda Spirit Zelda: Help! Malladus stole my body! 11:48, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I made this article at 3 in the morning yesterday and I do agree it could have been written in a better way. I'll eventually get around to fixing it. As for an article on merchandise, that is a great idea. This could just be one section of a much larger article.

I honestly don't know what to do with this. The way it is now absolutely needs to be changed in some fashion or another. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 19:57, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

If we can come up with a standardized way to do official merchandise I would be all for keeping it. Otherwise I'm no so sure. --Birdman5589 (talk) 13:47, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Kicking this. – Jazzi (talk) 20:48, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Aria

Beta minor NPC.

Support

  1. See the initial comment.WiseAdventurer (talk) 15:34, January 22, 2018 (UTC)
  2. I think we could possibly have a page for beta elements in each game, but unless there's any actual information about this character and what role she might have had, it doesn't really stand on its own. Oni Dark Link 17:29, January 22, 2018 (UTC)
  3. Yeah, doesn't deserve its own page at the very least. I think we have a page for beta elements, but maybe it's for the whole series? Not entirely sure on that, but it would fit better on a longer page dedicated to that sort of thing. —Ceiling Master 18:53, January 22, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Little Cucco Girl

Minor, secondary (no plot importance or none relation with Link), and unnamed NPC. As written by Oni Dark Link, "this character does not give or take anything from Link, she is not involved in any narrative and she isn't named. Unless someone provides a decent reason to keep it, then I'm going to delete it in the near future."

Support

  1. See the initial comment.WiseAdventurer (talk) 15:34, January 22, 2018 (UTC)
  2. This one I don't reckon even needs to be voted on. It's not fullfilling the criteria for a character article. Oni Dark Link 17:29, January 22, 2018 (UTC)
  3. Agreed with Oni; I'd say just delete it. —Ceiling Master 18:53, January 22, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Champion Followers

Beyond a non-official name, as far as I know, there is no in-game description or definition of such a group (and a simple mention somewhere does not justify a dedicated page). Since there is interesting info added, I suggest to merge it on the Champions page as a dedicated section instead.WiseAdventurer (talk) 11:36, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Support

  1. See the initial comment.WiseAdventurer (talk) 11:36, January 15, 2018 (UTC)
  2. Hmm. This is a tough one. There's definitely a theming going on there with these characters. They are four characters that we can certainly group together in a meta sense, however, this wiki arranges things from an inuniverse perspective and as far as I know, these four characters have absolutely no connection with each other in the game. So for that reason, mainly, I say delete it. Oni Dark Link 12:14, January 15, 2018 (UTC)
  3. They almost remind me of The Wind Waker sages, but yeah, I also think they should have a section on the Champions page. Saves us from those unofficial name templates. —Ceiling Master 13:42, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

@CeilingMaster, we do have a page for The Wind Waker sages. It's the Sages of the Master Sword. The thing is though that those characters have a shared role in the universe. They're both accomplishing the same goal as a group. If Riju and the rest of the champion's successors were actually referred to as Champions, then we'd have something. But they're not. They're four unrelated people that just happen to help Link in similar ways. It'd kind of be like grouping Darmani, Ruto and The Great Deku Tree together because they all give Link spiritual stones. Oni Dark Link 14:38, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

I'm neither supporting nor opposing the deletion of this article. However, I agree with WiseAdventurer in merging the articles, because it is a point of interest worth mentioning (Who knows? Maybe they'll become the new Champions). Disclaimer - I did not create this article, which is why I remain partially neutral with this article. --Nathan_The_Asian332 (talk) 00:05, January 16, 2018 (UTC)


Legend of Zelda Quiz

Yes this could be considered a non-cannon game, but do we really need to add pages for stuff like this. Yes it is a game that revolves around The Legend of Zelda series but it's an unofficial trivia game. I'm sure there are many similar things out there. I just don't feel something like this justifiably needs a page. --Birdman5589 (talk) 16:15, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. If it doesn't have the Nintendo seal of approval, it's fanon in my eyes, unless otherwise stated by Nintendo themselves. It being "officially" released doesn't change anything. --AuronKaizer! 19:21, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
  2. I, for one, would like to see Nintendo having some part of it, other than just having some "fancy" avatars from the games. Just adding to what may be known already, it could easily be fanon due to the fact that almost anything gets in the iPod App Store. - McGillivray227 20:21, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Poorly written, and if we add this, do we add the Zelda music in the iTunes store?

Oppose

  1. I dont see anything particularly wrong with it. Sure it's a little trivial but it's still an officially made game. If there are a lot of games life this however they would probably be best grouped on one page. As for now anyway I say let it stay Oni Dark Link 18:54, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
  2. It's on gamefaqs and on the iTunes website, where do you think I got the info from? User:Not Spock/SpritesNot Spock User:Not Spock/Userboxes19:57, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Hmm, tough call here. Its not really a fan game. I don't know what to do at all. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 16:46, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Is there a page for fan games? Like, with short descriptions of each game? If so this belongs there. If not I think we ought to make one because this is definitely a fan made game, whether it has adventure or not. A Link to the Present (talk)

Kicking this. – Jazzi (talk) 20:48, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

We had a vote and decided to delete all articles on fan games. This one slipped through the net for quite a while.

The Legend of Zelda III: The Triforce Saga

Why am I tagging this for deletion? Well, first, the "site" that it comes from doesn't look that reliable (and isn't listed on our fan site page, but of course, not many are probably). The image on the article on The Hylia looks like it's a photoshop image and an image from ALttP (I think that's where the image comes from) pasted on to a cartridge. Not to mention on the top of the article is says Apparently people on the internet believe everything they see. It’s this spreading epidemic that has been plaguing online society for nearly a decade now. An auction for a supposed prototype of “Zelda III” for the NES was listed on eBay (original link here, but was taken down suspiciously right after the end of the listing), and it was simply a grey NES cart with a white sheet of printing paper cut out into a square shape with courier font printed on it. Everybody dismissed this auction as a hoax. And really, in the article on Zeldapedia, it says: A supposed beta cartridge for the game was circulated on the auction site eBay in October of 2005. And then It is currently believed that this cartridge was a hoax.. Were this true, it'd actually be known. And, the image on The Hylia does not have a Nintendo Seal of Approval. That just sells the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jäzzi (talk • contribs)

Support

  1. Just because we have one page about a hoax doesn't mean every hoax needs one. This is just from some person putting something on eBay. If I wanted to, I could put up the beta SNES cartridge of the direct sequel for ALttP and we would have to make a page for it if we don't delete this one. --Birdman5589 (talk) 22:29, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Derp. --AuronKaizer! 22:40, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
  3. I don't edit this wiki, but this page should definitely be deleted. Hoaxes should get pages if they're notable. This hoax is not notable. It was literally a topic of discussion in the community for less than 3 days. It was never that notable nor memorable. ~~~~

Oppose

1. We have pages for the Overture of Sages and Jadusable, so by this logic we should be deleting those articles too. Why only delete one if the wiki isn't okay with hoax articles,Which it clearly is. (Ok with hoax articles here, that is). Basically there is no real reason for deleting it since there is nothing wrong with the page and this wiki is ok with hoax articles... I don't know how to word it, exactly. Besides, people might be interested in it. (I know this isn't written properly, can someone fix this for me? I dont know how to do it.) Eagle flame369 (talk) 17:08, September 19, 2015 (UTC)

Copied from what I said above: Hoaxes should get pages if they're notable. This hoax is not notable. It was literally a topic of discussion in the community for less than 3 days. It was never that notable nor memorable. ~~~~


Comments

I'm a bit unsure here, seeing as how at least one other hoax has a page. --AuronKaizer! 20:53, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Third option. Like above people seem to be in favor of having a merchandise page perhaps we should have a page for the major hoaxes. I see no reason why the overture of the sages should have a page when Zelda III doesn't, it's not that big a hoax since, according to our page, it was revealed to be a hoax not long after being shown in the first place. Zelda III also is quite a major hoax topic I've heard of it before. But personally I don't think either really deserve a page. A page for all the major hoaxes like the obtainable Triforce or the convincing interesting Zelda Wii rumors would suffice. Oni Dark Link 21:51, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

A general page for hoaxes seems like a good idea. -Isdrakthül 17:19, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
A page for only for major hoaxes sounds good. Green Rupee 17:30, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
Hoax page sounds good. Much like a list of fan sites, but like, explaining the hoaxes and whatnot. – Jazzi (talk) 17:35, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Buddhism

Aright, let's see if we can finally decide something on the Articles for deletion page for the first time in like ten years. The obvious criteria in support of this article is that we already have a page for Christianity. However, that page covers something that was considered an universe faith at one point early in the series that since has been written out (if not retconned entirely). While the examples in this article mainly only covers references. It needs quite a bit of work but I am leaning slightly more towards keeping it right now but I'll let some arguments be put forward before I throw down an official opinion. Oni Dark Link 05:25, March 25, 2017 (UTC)

Support

  1. There is currently nothing relevant, as such the page is empty and useless, moreover the article starts with incorrect or approximative info. The declaration "is given a Medieval setting" is not correct. The main religion/spirituality in Japan is Shinto(ism) and there are obviously much more references from Shinto than Buddhism in Zelda games. If the contributor who created the page, does not correct and develop the page, the page will become approximative and pointless. For just a few references, they can anyway just been noticed in the respective pages, meaning in Koloktos and Ancient Cistern, not need to have a dedicated article. WiseAdventurer (talk) 13:15, March 25, 2017 (UTC)
  2. It needs more than just very minor imagery and references. It should go. Green Rupee 22:17, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. We need it for relevant information.--Metalreflectslime (talk) 08:07, March 25, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

An alternative way, I suggest, would be to merge any "in real life" religion/spirituality references in an unique religion/spirituality page that currently serves for Christianity.

Because Oni Dark Link is right, it looks weird and somewhat unfair to have a page for Christianity, while almost all kind of religions and spiritualities have references (sometimes much more in time) in Zelda games: Shinto, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Ancient Greek/Roman/Celtic/Scandinavian/Egyptian/Summerian/etc. Paganism/Polytheism/Mythologies, any Animism from anywhere, etc. WiseAdventurer (talk) 13:15, March 25, 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm actually leaning slightly towards canning it not. Because the content there really isn't relevant. We can mention it on the pages themselves, the same isn't really true of the way Christianity was handled in the older games. It outright had churches and artwork of Link kneeling in front of a crucifix. A page listing references might be useful but I don't think it should overwrite the current Christianity article. Oni Dark Link 13:44, March 25, 2017 (UTC)
In any case, for just a few references, they can indeed just been noticed in the respective pages, meaning in Koloktos and Ancient Cistern, not need to have a dedicated page. WiseAdventurer (talk) 14:41, March 25, 2017 (UTC)

Legends of Zelda

Aside from the page itself being a mess, I doubt the usefulness of the information on the page. Even if the information is worth keeping, it would probably be better to keep it on a "Player's Guide" page. Actually, if we keep it, all of Baggins created "Player's Guide" pages could be merged and condensed into one thing. Or, y'know, we just delete them. Green Rupee 19:17, March 23, 2018 (UTC)

Support

  1. I agree, and I would even write that we should take a deeper look at most of the pages he has created. A lot of things added are probably not official or are not simply checkable (by everyone). WiseAdventurer (talk) 14:29, March 24, 2018 (UTC)
  2. It almost seems like it was taken word for word from whatever guide it came from. I don't like its tone; it's not even trying to be encyclopedic. And yeah, a Player's Guide page would be the best route if its information is deemed usable enough to warrant a page at all. —Ceiling Master 11:53, March 26, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Rubber

I was thinking of just turning this page into a stub but from doing a bit of research it appears that this material does not actually exist as a separate entity in the game. I think it's fine to just mention it as the material used to create the rubber armor pieces in their respective pages. If disambiguation for the armors is really needed, I we could just add "This article is about the body armor. For the head and leg armors, see Rubber Helm and Rubber Tights." to the top of the Rubber Armor article. Each page already links to the others and mentions the set, so I don't think we even need that. We don't need a page for every single mentioned material or set of items. Tirlby (talk) 23:18, January 19, 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: I just looked at the Armor article and it already lists everything important there. Do we really need to have a ton of disambiguation pages for each separate type of armor/item (for example Flamebreaker, Radiant, or Barbarian)? They should just redirect to the proper article if applicable or be deleted. Tirlby (talk) 23:27, January 19, 2019 (UTC)

Support

  1. Agreed, this is most likely one of many pages that just don't need to exist. What little information is there is redundant. – Ceiling Master 00:15, January 20, 2019 (UTC)
  2. I suppose it's better late than never. Rubber, Flamebreaker, and Radiant need to go. Green Rupee 05:30, April 29, 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement