As a wiki there will be some pages that are not up to standard. On this page, listed are articles up for deletion. All users are invited to participate in the discussions as to whether these articles should be deleted or not. The pages listed will be voted on to reach a consensus. Once a consensus has been reached or a length of time has passed, an administrator will review the discussion and decide what action should be taken.

Replacement filing cabinet


1 2 3

How to list an article

  1. Put {{delete}} on the page to be deleted and save.
  2. Come to this page and create a level 3 header (===Title of page===) discussing the deletion under the Pages listed for deletion header.

Speedy deletion

Found a blank page? A duplicate? A misspelling? A page filled with nonsense? Try instead using a speedy deletion. Simply type {{d|reason for speedy deletion}} on the page and the page will appear in Category:Speedy deletion candidates. An administrator will check the page and make a decision without the voting process.

Pages listed for deletion


Beta minor NPC.


  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)



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."


  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)



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)


  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)



@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)


  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?


  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? Vaati (The Minish Cap)Not Spock NotSpocksPic19:57, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


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)

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 (talkcontribs)


  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)


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)


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)


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)


  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)


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


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)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.