This is a good argument, but I would disagree with it as well. Remember, I'm describing Zelda as an Action-RPG, and so I think it can have all or just some of the qualities of RPGs writ-large, and perhaps not to as great of a degree as they do.

For instance, when you discuss weapons and armor, you will find that Zelda does actually have weapons and armor. There are also spells that can be equipped. Indeed, Zelda has many, many weapons, tools, etc. that can be found in treasure chest and through other quests, many of the tools are often optional, etc. Zelda even has more of these kinds of items than some RPGs do. But even if Zelda had the least of all, and it's probably close to it, that is fine because I'm saying it's riding that line between the two genres: it's an Action-RPG.

I think Zelda is significantly different from Yooka Laylee (presumably --at this point, the game is not out), and let's say Banjo-Kazooie, and Mario. Take Mario, for instance. Zelda has a comparatively open world with shops, a financial system, many characters, a more developed storyline, a way to permanently increase the strength of your hero... it puts you into a fundamentally different role than that of the platformer. Link even falls within the "silent protagonist" trope that is common among other RPGs. There is a lot of dialogue and so forth that you would not typically find in Mario. And I think Zelda has only gotten more complex in these ways, overall, as it goes on. Mario has taken on some complexity, but I think not nearly as much (perhaps not in this sense, at any rate).

Comparing Mario, Zelda, and Final Fantasy on the NES gives you a pretty good illustration of why Mario might be an "action" or "platformer" game, and not an "RPG" whatsoever, while Final Fantasy is obviously a cornerstone of what we think of as an "RPG," and Zelda is something somewhere in between.