Talk:Hinata and Hanabi's Mother/Archive 1

Byakugan?
Does she even have the Byakugan? Her eyes are closed in the picture Shock Dragoon Jun-24-10 12:00pm
 * Thank you Shock Dragoon Jun-24-10 12:15pm
 * It seems as though they were careful about that point. Her eyes were closed Cerez365 (talk) 16:56, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

NejiHyuga900 - I don't think that Hinata's mother have blind eyes like the other Hyuga. If she did, she would have been a relative or a sibling to Hiashi.

--"I am the Thunder Dragon!" 17:13, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

People stop thinking Hinata's and Hanabi's mother is Hyuga...If she would be Hyuga than Hinata and Hanabi would be ill and having problems...Both of them are normal...Also it is pervert thinking Neji and Hinata can be boyfriend and girlfriend, I mean c'mon they are cousins...Only cousins six generation from their same ancestor can marry and even that is not for sure without problems for children...
 * People have married into their families without problems, it's perverse to you but normal to others. This is why they tend to look for distant relatives. Essentially Hashirama did the same with Mito and their generations are fine.--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 11:57, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Most of children from mariages of relatives are born sick and ill with big problems both physically and mentally, so if anybody of you think it is normal marying relatives even distance, do it so, and than see what will happen... I can see Hinata doesn't have physical problems, she is quite normal girl and both her mental condicion is normal... Also all Hyugas beside Hinata have dark brown hair, Neji, Hanabi, Hiashi, Hisashi, Ko, Hyuga elder, so her mother was not Hyuga because Hinata looks more on her mother, and Neji and Hanabi looks more on Hiashi and Hizashi...But I gues now somebody will come and say something very smart...93.86.198.179 (talk) 18:25, November 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, inbreeding causes such a slight increase in the risk of genetic increases that it only becomes noticeable after generations of institutional inbreeding between very close relatives. Unless the Hyūga have been marrying their siblings for a generation or eight, a cousin marriage poses only a negligible risk. In fact, in most of the world (including Japan), marriages between first cousins isn't even considered incest.
 * So marrying someone from your own family, would not just be accepted, risk-free, and quite normal, but considering the Hyūga's kekkei genkai, it would also be almost expected. There are plenty of Hyūga with differently coloured hair, so that argument is moot as well. —ShounenSuki (talk 12:09, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Okay I see here that you all just are dying that Hinata and Hanabi's mother be a Hyuga, just because Mito, who is not secondary, not third party caracter but a quarter party caracter(that means she was only creted so Naruto can conect with First Hokage, but is not even important for story), was Hashirama 's wife and cousin, now everybody in manga should marry their cousins...But since I can't reach anybody with my arguments whats the heck...Lets just wait and see who Hinata mother really is, because if Kishimoto could create abouth A and Bee chapter of past, why not abouth Hinata's mother... Also kekkei genikai doesn't solve all lifes problems 93.86.247.249 (talk) 17:30, November 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I couldn't care less who their mum is, nor do I think we'll ever actually get to see her in the manga. Also, Mito and Hashirama weren't cousins. Their clans were remotely related, which basically means that Mito and Hashirama were about as closely related as Queen Elizabeth II and Barack Obama.
 * Your only arguments so far were that marriages between close relatives always lead to children with birth defects, which simply isn't true in any way, and that relatives marrying is perverse, which is a matter of opinion and in the case of cousins, not an opinion shared by most of the world. —ShounenSuki (talk 17:45, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Here we go with unimportant compair as Barack Obama and Elizabeth and world diferences, like Kishimoto had lived on all five continets in every country of world...Now I know you know all, but let me just ask,,Why do you people all want that Hinata's mom be related to Hinata's dad'', and isn't saying that Hinata's mom is an Hyuga is not an factual thing because we never actually saw the women in manga, we only saw her in anime in a form of filler dedicated to Hinat, so that Kishimoto or anime staff can make from short chapter one whole episode...So if this is a pedia or wiki, and only factual is important, than why always saying something that is not factual...Also Kishimoto never mentioned her mom being a Hyuga, that is just another of internet rumors of some people who likes to think of stories...So until we have visual proof of Hinata's mom being an Hyuga in a form of picture in manga, we will not see it as that, and it is not important how I , you or anybody see here, it is important what Kishi said, but also how much it is good for caracter...And that concludes our topic for tonight children, bye...93.86.247.249 (talk) 19:23, November 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * You do realise that Hinata's mum would be a Hyūga even is she hadn't been born into the clan, right? No matter what her lineage is, she became a Hyūga the second she married Hiashi. No-one specifically wants Hinata's mum and Hiashi to be relatives, but they are both Hyūga, full stop. —ShounenSuki (talk 19:39, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

That's not a problem if she is not Hyuga by blood but by been maried to Hiashi... 93.86.247.249 (talk) 23:09, November 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * And why would it be a problem if she was a Hyūga by blood, other than misconceptions and personal preferences? —ShounenSuki (talk 00:52, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Because it is an incest...You heard of incest didn't you or should we say it is consangvinitet how it is called in some countries...Now since I have some kwnolege of medicine since I went in medical school I know incest isn't good... Lets say you marry your sister or somebody close related to you...Now you will say,, Well many people in the west in USA etc etc had maryied their cousins, but I will say it is stupid because when blood that is similar mix it causes problems, not in first generation from that man and women's children, not in the third or fourth, but in sixth or seventh...So if Hinata's mother is Hyuga, than Hinata and Naruto's grandchildren will have problems and don't mention Tsunade, she is third generation or second from Harshirama and Mito, and don't have any children...And one more thing, don't belive everything what is written on wikipedia, because wikipedia don't write experts but bored alone people who are laity to some material for what you need experts, and about incest you and nobody here can argue, because it is subject of doctors and genetic ingeneers, and on wikipedia teens and idle people  write articles from books but don't know real subject and haven't gone to school for that...As it's concerns wikipedia, well my brother had wrote so many articles about military of my country, but he never went in military schools and doesn't really knows anything about real army, also he is writing wikipedia's articles about guns and military tanks and aircrafts. And real life also doesn't inflicts Naruto manga, because Deidara had his both arm ripped from his body, and normally people with ripped arms pass out...178.222.36.67 (talk) 13:33, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * This IP user though…I can't tell if you're here or there. You surely don't sound like someone with a lot of medical sense. People have been marrying into their families for generations and their children have come out fine. You seem so strongly averted to it because of either societal beliefs or religious ones. It's not uncommon for people of "nobility" to marry within their families in those times to keep their bloodline, familial traits and abilities (in this case) in every generation. I'm not saying it won't cause problems for the offspring because there is always the chance that it will, but it wasn't a very uncommon practise in that time.--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 13:58, November 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no clear definition of incest other than who the law allows a person to marry or not. In Japan, marriages between firsts cousins are legal, which means it isn't generally considered incest. In most of the world, this is basically the same.
 * Incest, or actually inbreeding, only causes a significant rise in the chance of birth defects after several generations of it. This doesn't mean that if two siblings have children, their great-great-grandchildren will get birth defects; it means that if two siblings have children and those children have siblings with each other, et cetera, et cetera, then there will be a significant rise in the chance of birth defects. Even then, the chance is still quite low unless the inbreeding is kept up over many, many generations, as happened in several European noble families and among the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt.
 * So no, Tsunade should be having any problems unless Mito and Hashirama were very close relatives, and her parents were very close relatives, and her great-grandparents were, and her great-great-grandparents, et cetera. The same goes for Hinata and whoever she'll marry. In fact, even if Hinata's parents were first cousins and Hinata has children with Neji, their children would more than likely be perfectly healthy. —ShounenSuki (talk 14:14, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Okay we have here a problem, so I keep my opinion, and you all keep your opinon and we are all happy...178.222.36.67 (talk) 14:17, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Mr. unknown user, thank you for demonstrating us the result of inbreeding on yourself with the symptoms of mental retardation. --Elveonora (talk) 15:28, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

@Elevenora thank you for demonstration of being a sponger to administrator...You know there is not a n extra points on this pedia for that...And for insulting me well I don't fall on insults of fat girl who doesn't know how to wipe her nose without help of her nany...93.87.109.46 (talk) 17:04, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

You insulted yourself by making such pointless discussion. --Elveonora (talk) 17:06, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Well you first started with my mental condition and my family inbreed history with wich I'm not familiar...And by this pointless discusinon, well what can I say ,,This is internet!!! So we can do everything what is normal and humane even star a discusion like this...93.87.109.46 (talk) 17:11, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

But this is not forums about religion nor incest. This is talkpage used to improve the articles. If you see something that should improve the page then edit it, but keep in mind that if its something against rules or others disagree with, it will be changed or removed. I still dont see how this discussion can improve something. --Elveonora (talk) 17:18, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Well I don't say it will improve, but it will keep people from making same mistake like wit Tobi. Everybody was sure that Tobi is Madara, and in the end it turns out that Tobi isn't Madara...So if we are not sure for something like that that is true, how can we be sure for something like this...It is not a religion or moral discusion, it is discuion of why people think somethning, when there is no prooof for that...I said we never saw her except in anime 166, and that was not in manga and was not made by Kishimoto...Only proof of her being similar to women shown in 166 is fact that Raiga had same lightning kiba as Ameyuri had before Kisihmoto showed all seven swords...As concerning insults from anybody on my acount, well I'm rather foulmouthed and dirthytalk...93.87.109.46 (talk) 17:35, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Until Kishimoto shows us the canon mother of Hinata, it will not be changed. So far this is only mother we know of, and it does not matter if she is Hyuga by blood or not since she is married into the clan. Omnibinder commented something about animators doing stuff that would contradict the manga one day. Unless Kishimoto has hands in this its non canon, yet the only canon we have now. I don't see how is it possible Kiba swords appeared in anime long ago and now in manga unless Kishi has worked with animators or they copied from him somehow. I think a page showing canon level would be good:
 * appeared in manga/databook: canon
 * appeared in anime and no other explanation given in manga nor databook (First Tsuchikage,Hinata and Hanabi's mother): temporary canon
 * appeared in anime before manga (Kiba swords, lending some canonicity to Raiga): possibly canon
 * appeared as a filler, but filling/a complement for info given by manga (Guren arc, Kyubi powers, Orochimaru's white snake scroll: partially canon
 * appeared in filler and no other references are made in manga nor other anime fillers: non canon

What do you think ? --Elveonora (talk) 18:01, November 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * I like that suggestion. A lot of other wikis have "Canon" articles. Why not us? --KiumaruHamachi (talk) 18:07, November 24, 2011 (UTC)KiumaruHamachi

Mmm Ok...93.87.109.46 (talk) 18:38, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Article name
Is this correctly written? Should it be Hinata's and Hanabi's mother? Or why just don't say Hiashi's wife?--Donatelo (talk) 17:23, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's correct. If two people own one object together, the possessive 's is placed after the name of the second person.
 * "Hinata and Hanabi's mother" versus "Hinata's and Neji's fathers." --ShounenSuki (talk 18:09, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Blood type
I was looking over at the blood types of the clan members, and taking them in consideration, her blood type can be given as A. Hiashi and Hizashi are identical twins, and are type B. Neji is O, so it means Hizashi has a recessive gene, and by consequence, Hiashi also has it, but Hinata and Hanabi are type A, meaning Hiashi passed on the recessive gene, so they must have gotten the dominant A gene from their mother. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 01:13, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Forget what I said, she could be either A or AB. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 01:14, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Can't it be inferred that the mother is deceased? Hinata used the term "was" as in past tense when describing how kind her mother was. - Illuminate Void 17:23, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

From anime we can't be sure anything only trow manga...When Jiraya spoke of Tsunades childhood as grandaughter of First Hokage there was and image of old women holding Tsunade...Now some people mabe tought that that is what is Mito, and there is no resemblence beatwen them...Also bloodtypes and jutsus are not so important they just bring story interesting...Only time bloodtype was mentioned ina manga as I remembre is when Orochimaru asked Kabuto what blood type is due to belive in Japan that diferen bloodtypes have diferent personalities...It's question for them like zodiac to Western culture...

deceased
I think it's obvious now.--Elveonora (talk) 18:26, August 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * She is obviously dead 0_o--Elveonora (talk) 19:54, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * proof? Kunoichi101 (talk) 05:29, February 5, 2013 (UTC)Kunoichi101

Byakugan 2.0
Hinata and Hanabi have "pure Byakugan". If their mother hadn't Byakugan, they would have the "no pure Byakugan" as Himawari. I think that we should to insert Byakugan nell'infobox.--Sharingan91 (talk) 19:26, August 13, 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, Himawari awakened her Byakugan and wasn't born with it because she's only half Hyuga. If Hinata and Hanabi's mother wasn't a Hyuga with Byakugan, they wouldn't be born with it nor would Hanabi's byakugan be "very pure". It only makes sense that their mother had a Byakugan, and she looks just like a Hyuga anyway. --Legendary Super Saiya-Jin 4 (talk) 19:28, August 13, 2015 (UTC)


 * Where was a pure Byakugan ever defined? • Seelentau 愛 議 19:30, August 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * In the movie(the last), it is said that the Hyuga clan has preserved the purity of the Byakugan. We can infer that they married between members of the same clan.--Sharingan91 (talk) 19:35, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

The only time they ever mentioned "pure Byakugan" was when Toneri describe Hanabi's and possibly Hinata's (Byakugan Princess title) but then again what exactly does "pure" mean? I'm taking it as that both are from the direct line of Hamura and both (Hanabi in the convo) were very powerful, nothing more. "Pure" can have many meanings and frankly you're all implying that the Hyuga practice incest there, which would actually lead to the opposite effect. She most likely didn't have a Byakugan, but we'll probably never know given she's most likely deceased with not being present at her daughter's wedding. Shock Dragoon (talk) 19:40, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

It's definition wasn't defined, but it's definition was implied. In The Last, Toneri stated that Hanabi had a very pure Byakugan which was well-suited for the Tenseigan. In order for the eyes be pure, and in order for all members to be born with it, wouldn't that require some incest between clan members to keep the purity of the eyes going? Especially among the main family of the clan? --Legendary Super Saiya-Jin 4 (talk) 19:46, August 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * Hyuga clan is the most numerous between the Konoha's clan. Incest is unlikely. It is simple: Hyuga + Hyuga = son with byakugan; Hyuga+ No Hyuga = son with awakened byakugan or son without byakugan. --Sharingan91 (talk) 19:49, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

Oddly yes... they had incest between cousins to preserve the bloodline. In real life, Genetically you can procreate with your cousin and the child would be completely normal as if you weren't even related to your cousin since that is for some reason a scientific fact.. That is how and why they procreate with cousins in the Hyuga..


 * Hyuga is a noble family. Even in the past in Europe, when there were monarchies, the nobles of the various countries were part of the same family and were married between consanguineous--Sharingan91 (talk) 20:13, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

@Sharingan Well I don't where you got the most numerous part from, since we don't see that much of most random clan members anyway. But I don't see how it's unlikely, Hamura had Byakugan, whoever his wife was didn't have it for obvious reasons. Then he could have had or or multiple children, assuming he had multiple. Those children were born with Byakugan and had children with some other people, and eventually those cousins (since irl, you could have a child with a cousin without any problems) would have to start procreating together to preserve the Byakugan or else it would vanish due to the blood becoming so thin and diluted. Besides, in order for there to be a "Hyuga + Hyuga = Byakugan" scenario in the first place there must be incest involved to some extent. --Legendary Super Saiya-Jin 4 (talk) 20:15, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

New deletion tag
um...we have Obito's Grandmother Munchvtec (talk) 14:04, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
 * Ino's Mother, Chōji's Mother, Haku's Mother. "Lack of content" is definitely not a valid reason, at all. I would've rather argue her not being confirmed to be Hinata's mother (I'm pretty sure it was tho), at least that would've made a little bit more sense.--Omojuze (talk) 14:31, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah :/ Munchvtec (talk) 14:32, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --JouXIII (talk) 14:35, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
 * Same. Norleon (talk) 14:48, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't use the existence of other articles as justification for anything. Evaluate an article on its own merits.
 * This article has no content outside of a description of her appearance, which is insufficient material. ~SnapperTo 18:07, December 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * The little amount of content on this article has been valid for 5 years and nothing has change to warrant a deletion. --Bio havik (talk) 18:48, December 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles do not get a pass based on the amount of time they've existed. The article's necessity is being questioned now, and it therefore needs to justify itself now. ~SnapperTo 19:38, December 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * You questioned the article having no content and consensus was reached on the matter that it did, hence the deletion tag being removed.--Bio havik (talk) 19:44, December 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * The actual consensus seems to be that there are other articles that also don't have content. Which, if anything, seems like support in favor of deletion. ~SnapperTo 20:02, December 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with deletion of it and the other "unnecessary" ones that follow this set up.--Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 02:20, December 25, 2015 (UTC)

I'm okay with its deletion. There's nothing relevant or notable in her personality section other than "she's kind", and a description of a picture is pretty much needless. But that's my opinion. 17:55, December 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. I don't think that this page doesn't respect the rules. --Sharingan91 (talk) 19:33, December 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * Well... If we REALLY have to delete this page, at least we could add her in here under the "Other Notable Clan Members", since Studio Pierrot DID bother to put her in Episode 166. --JouXIII (talk) 23:40, December 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason for the deletion tag is untrue, as we know something about her personality. And anyway, this article is informative and should stay as deleting it isn't beneficial at all to the wiki.--Sarutobii2 (talk) 17:59, December 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it informative? Everything meaningful about her is in the page title: "Hinata and Hanabi's Mother". The fact that they have a mother is not independently noteworthy. ~SnapperTo 18:33, January 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * The article informs users of her appearance, family tree, personality, début & anime exclusivity, hence its informative and beneficial to the wiki. The same can't be said about its deletion. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 04:33, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles for these characters would theoretically come with the same "benefits", yet somehow the wiki survives by dumping them in another article. There's nothing in this article to make her different from miscellaneous Hyūga #5. ~SnapperTo 04:59, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * The article's existence is proof that its different, unless of course we know of Hyūga #5 immediate family and personality? --Sarutobii2 (talk) 05:13, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Hyūga #5 can be said to have done something. This character can't.
 * She runs into the same problem that any unnamed character has: any link to her is immediately equally as informative as the article itself. In the same way that "a Hyūga tells Sakura about Naruto" eliminates the need for that article, so does "Hinata and Hanabi have a mother" eliminate the need for this one. ~SnapperTo 05:27, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * I addressed the deletion tag being untrue, so that ends the discussion. Anything now is nit picking. In fact consensus already occurred to keep this article, so its pointless trying to delete it when its been established that is has content and is as valid as other articles. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 07:30, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * I also do not see any particular problems with the article for it to be deleted.--Ghostrick142 (talk) 11:26, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * What happened to consensus? I read this talkpage and see just two people voting to remove the page, yet there is a large number of users who have given evidence to suggest the page should be kept, yet the page is deleted on the whim's of a user who was involved in the discussion. Exactly what is the point of a discussion about a deletion tag if it doesn't really matter what people think about the deletion tag? As far as I could see, the article was tagged by the same user who deleted the page and who was involved in this discussion, that's hardly a fair judgement if you ask me.
 * Plus, unless I'm very much mistaken, this page was presumably created for the purpose of ensuring that this would be listed in Semantic MediaWiki properties and therefore, be listed in the infobox of Hinata and Hanabi. Or is it this wiki's desire to no longer list family relations in infoboxes, in which case, the section might as well be removed from the infobox? That logic can be drawn by the removal of a page that was most likely created so that the relation could be listed in the infobox.
 * "Lack of content" is hardly a valid complaint about an article. If there is a "lack of content", then you try to expand the page or at least make the effort to look at the episode(s)/chapter(s) to see if more information could be included in the article. There are many pages on this wiki, specifically game techniques, which are essentially an infobox with a picture and a single line to describe it. There are also those pages which will never be longer than enough lines to warrant the removal of a stub tag. I don't see these pages being deleted for "lack of content" either. --SuperSajuuk (talk) 18:51, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL. It was deleted. The deletion tag was completely unnecessary then. >_<--Ghostrick142 (talk) 19:08, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * The article should be reinstated. There are of the rules. I don't think that there were the conditions to delete this page. --Sharingan91 (talk) 19:21, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Completely unfair that Snapper can play judge, jury and executioner in these discussions and i agree that this article was unfairly deleted and should be restored. --Bio havik (talk) 22:14, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --JouXIII (talk) 22:26, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been restored, so I checked the page history and Snapper2 is the only person to call for the deletion of the page (twice) and in both times, the community have disagreed in deleting the page and have voted to keep it. So why does Snapper2 feel he can be the arbitrator of a discussion and delete something when the community does not agree with him? This page, and others like it, should be kept for all the reasons I laid out above. Pages should only be deleted if they're spam, vandalism or fanon: pages lacking in content should not be deleted for any reason imo. --SuperSajuuk (talk) 14:09, January 11, 2016 (UTC)

Emm... I have a question. If we decided to restore the page, why is the deletion tag still there? Ravenlot 27 (talk) 14:31, January 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * The page was restored with its full history. The last edit made before the page was deleted had a deletion tag on it. If an editor wants to remove the tag, they're free to do so, as the consensus on this page shows that the community wants to keep the page. --SuperSajuuk (talk) 16:01, January 11, 2016 (UTC)

Why some people refuse to give us the pleasure of their absence from this wikia is beyond me... That being said, I don't think articles such as these (or any of the ones listed in this discussion) are necessary. At one point the wiki used to be littered with "unknown x", "unnamed y", "unseen, unheard a, a', a '', someone's mother/father/other relation" etc and they were all deleted in the name of streamlining the quality of articles on the wiki. Most of the times these articles are created by part time editors who just watched the episode/read the manga, create the article and leave it at that. The majority of persons agreeing to a decision does not necessarily make it the best course of action. The wiki is not a popularity stint. These articles are usually for characters who we never see again and/or are in 1 frame and then the article is padded with the information from that frame or else repeated over and over to create the illusion of viability; that's not something we should find "OK". With that in mind, I saw another wiki create an index of unnamed/fodder characters that could work in our favour, however, I believe to to be something that should be brought up in a forum rather than here.--Cerez 365 ™(talk) 16:30, January 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * "someone's mother/father/other relation" etc and they were all deleted in the name of streamlining the quality of articles on the wiki." @Cerez: Sadly, clearly not ALL (per evidence above, the first few messages)--Ghostrick142 (talk) 17:18, January 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * Good to see the He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Called-His-Old-Name back again whenever the opportunity to call someone out approaches.
 * That being said, I've been pretty silent in regards to this article (and most discussions on the wikia in general. It's how I work.) so fun times for me. That being said, this article functionally has no purpose and is essentially only an article because she is Hinata's mother and could therefore end up in the infobox of Hinata and her extended family. Her picture could go in Hiashi's article. Her description could go in well anyone of of her childrens articles, her sole appearance could have gone in the Hyuga article and there would have literally been no lose.
 * I say this as unbiased as possible, as I don't care if this article remains either way. Despite the above, the article -only exists because of her connection with people-. Sad but true. If she had a speaking role, did something, or showed up in a databook, cool. But she did not.--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol.svg (talk) 11:40, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * And I don't watch the anime, so I assume Obito's Grandmother did all of jack and #(%@ in the episode correct? The article doesn't say anything which leads me to believe she was just there to sit in the kitchen (or something) as Obito goes off to his mission and die.--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol.svg (talk) 11:45, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * She's already listed under Hyūga Clan and she's seen in File:Hinata's family.PNG, which has already been jammed into Hanabi and Hiashi's article and could conceivably be jammed into Hinata's if people really want to. Bases are all covered as reasonably as they can be. ~SnapperTo 23:42, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And yet article remains. Such is life.--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol.svg (talk) 21:00, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussions are not votes. A bunch of people saying they want the article kept doesn't mean anything if they can't provide an actual reason to keep it. If people's only argument is that a main character's parent should be made an exception, and if that same parent is fairly represented in another article, then deletion is justifiable. ~SnapperTo 18:03, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

Reasons were given, you just dont like them. Its about what everyone wants as a whole, not just you.Munchvtec (talk) 18:35, January 20, 2016 (UTC)