Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga

Please see the second AFD for the new (December 2006) discussion

Vanity - The article, now about a fake game, was simply created to generate attention for an obscure person, who in turn tried to re-sell the "fake" game in a private auction on his forum using this article as hype for the product. Nothing but a ruse to get traffic and money from a hoax. TSA 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Nomination has the facts wrong about this article.  The article has nothing to do with vanity, as I wrote the majority of the text back in November of 2005.  There's no money or traffic to be had through this article at this point, nor was there any when the original article was put up, as I wasn't in possession of the alleged cart or even knew much more than what's in the article.  Article is about a noted hoax that made the rounds throughout the internet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly not a vanity article, and I'd say it's a notable hoax, although it could use better referencing. BryanG(talk) 00:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the second AFD for the new (June 2006) discussion


 * 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 of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Tito xd (?!?) 00:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The_Legend_of_Zelda:_The_Triforce_Saga
No content, blatent advertisement/spam GeminiDomino 04:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete jnothman talk 04:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - This game has actually found some legs due to an alleged find of a prototype cart at a flea market. While the article name needs to be fixed to conform to whatever standard the Zelda people have set up, and the article needs to be cleaned up further, I have fixed the article somewhat to meet the standards of why it should be included in WP via removing the blatant ads and spam and replacing it with actual information.  I'll withhold a vote until more info can come about regarding whether this article can be improved further. Keep. --badlydrawnjeff 14:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep of Badlydrawnjeff's edits. Even if this stays here the rest of its time without anyone adding anything else to it, there's still more information here than some other articles, and I thank Jeff for his work. However, it would be bad if it became a space for rampant speculation of the unsourced kind, which it might eventually because of the subject matter. So if kept, we should keep an eye on it. Jacqui  ★ 15:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with the main article; this is essentially unverifiable and of no real note even if it was. Nice rewrite, though. - Just zis Guy, you know? 16:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the link posted by Ian Moody. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - What part of the Moody link makes you vote delete? Not only is that link already in the article, but it tends to increase, rather than decrease, verifibility of the existence of the game, even if the recent eBay cart is a hoax. --badlydrawnjeff 21:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not a hoax or a fake, and even if it was, merging wouldn't change that. And notice that there are several articles on cancelled games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete After reading and some other things I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the eBay cart. Ian Moody 11:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This information is valuable, and should not be deleted. The question is where it should be merged to if at all - do we merge it to the series article, to LttP's or LA's? Or, perhaps, to all three? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This one is treading the line on WP:V, but at the very least it's a noteworthy hoax. If it turns out to be fake, no big deal; it can be smerged into a one-liner in the LoZ series article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Is the existence of the in-development game a hoax? I know that this whole eBay cart thing from last week has become a bit of an internet phenomenon regardless of its actual existence, but I didn't think there was that much question regarding the verifibility. Regardless, assuming it ends up being kept, maybe a move to Zelda III might be in order? --badlydrawnjeff 19:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm given to understand that the existence of the in-development game isn't verified. My hunch is that it's not a hoax, but that's just a hunch. In any case, no, that's not a good idea. Zelda III should point to The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, and if Triforce Saga is verified, a dab notice should be placed at the top of the LTTP article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.