Talk:Inori's Brother

Deletion
I don't think there's a point to this article. He was barely present, and pretty much every relevant aspect of his character is already covered in Inori's article. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 19:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Same boat. If it was significant in any sort of way, the article would've been discussed and made the day of his episode debut. -Ventillate { About Me | Message | My Work } 19:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't have because no one cares. We still have named Boruto character articles that are empty, because no one cares. I'm of the opinion this has plenty of info to be an article, and there is stuff in it that, while doesn't seem all that important (half this wiki isn't), it isn't elsewhere. He also uses two jutsu, one of which was only used in a film, so it's valid to note, one that is fairly unique and got deleted without discussion to make it seem less important and he shares a character design with another character. When will people chill with the article witchhunt. Munchvtec (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't see much of a point in this sticking around. OmegaRasengan (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there something more to be discussed about small articles? He's used techniques, has an individual voice actor, he's an important feature to an entire episode. He's minor, but that isn't enough to disqualify him as article-worthy. If we were simply revert the info in this page into another, would it include his profile image? or techniques used? What about his death, which doesn't include other characters besides Boro? I believe he's got enough unique detail to be standalone.--Koto Talk Page-My Contributions 20:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is people claim "oh, they have barely any content, it can be put elsewhere," but this is bullshit. Almost any time this comes up, it's simply because the character does not have a name. That's a completely meaningless argument. We have named character articles with far less and we keep them simply because they are named. The witch-hunt on content needs to stop, and this wiki needs more than just one person calling ever shot. Omni's intention was not to bring about discussion, the discussion did not matter to him. It was a guise and he plans to delete the article anyway. Update your rules, and go through all the old articles and promote more people that can actually help, or cut the witchhunt. Tired of seeing people work for the wiki, create content, and be shut down when the wiki itself is mostly dead. We do not have an article cap, that isn't an issue. This is a wikia, not a wiki. We take a certain series or thing, and we describe it in more detail than a wiki would. Whether someone has a name or not does not matter, and had not mattered many times over. We have examples. Munchvtec (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly don't know what constitutes as worthy or not. I haven't been here for the entire lifespan of this wiki. I came onboard rather late, so I can't really speak on whether the older or newer way of doing things regarding small articles is legitimate. However based off of my personal opinion (in reference to this article alone), this can be easily summed up in a few sentences in Inori's page. Regardless of whether my view is favored or not, majority rules. -Ventillate { About Me | Message | My Work } 21:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When I can count the people voting on one hand, there's an issue. Majority is not "three" or so people as opposed to two or one. The issue is that there is no consistency and it is one person doing whatever they damn please. Create a standard, vote on the standard and have that standard carry through the entire wiki. Stop letting one person decide how everything goes. I've been here since 2012, none of the mods care anymore. This character has enough content and does not break any consistency we have on the wiki, and I'll stand by supporting it. Munchvtec (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't see anything I disagree with in this statement. The standard should be the same as it was before. Detail rules the day. --Koto Talk Page-My Contributions 21:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. Someone else's work is not appreciated at all. I created many articles with techniques from Naruto Mobile, but they were all deleted for no apparent reason, without even explaining. Despite the fact that there is an official site of the game, which has a video with all the techniques and their names. But then they felt that there was no need to expand the wiki, despite the fact that articles with techniques from other games were available. I do not understand this logic at all and it is quite a shame when all your work is deleted. Taking into account the fact that I am from Russia, it is doubly difficult for me to create something...--ShadowKakashi39 (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's funny you say this Toroi, but for months and months we've been asking you for proof on a lot of the articles you created from Naruto Mobile. You don't provide any proof for anything and essentially ignored the opportunities we've taken to reach out to you. After ignoring you stilled charged with flooding the wiki with the same articles. It's one of the reasons you've been blocked constantly yet you still evade them. At the same time, some of your "proofs" aren't true, and that's when revisions or deletions are made to your articles. Now for the sake of fair argument, this one is a special exception, due to it being correct and debatable. -Ventillate { About Me | Message | My Work } 16:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, I remember that happening as well. I recall years ago there was a large discussion how to deal with video game jutsu articles, but it didn't end up going anywhere. One funny thing however, is Omnibender had created a mass number of those articles himself, and now arbitrarily deletes them, while others remain. I also recall some card game jutsu articles being deleted, some of which I agreed with because they were just silly, like "Dog Bite," for example. But some were fine imo, and have examples on the wiki of ones we are okay with, so. Munchvtec (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If Ino's mother has an article, why can't he? Zeldris the demon king (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Zeldris the Demon King
 * I did create a mass of articles. And at the time, I was asked to stop, which I did, and when I tried to create a discussion for how to list those many articles condensed in a single article, which no one bothered to participate. Also different, I could then, and still can now offer sources for the articles I created, both names and video of jutsu being used. My concern regarding stuff from the mobile Naruto games in particular also comes from the fact a number of the alledged articles had names exactly like things that people tried to add long before they showed up in games. For example, jutsu from the Edo Swordsmen had the exact same names as something a random user tried to add out of thin air back when they first showed up. The only reliably sourced name I ever got for those was Longsword Ninja Art: Massacre Method Formation, which user Kyuu19 provided sources actually showing the names, and that is a particularly complex example, because the names of stuff from those games are generally in Chinese instead of Japanese. The English name for that in-game is also the place holder name we had so far, which only supports the idea those mobile games just go through wiki and add whatever name they find. Regarding adding detail, the problem is that most people confuse adding detail with being informative. Purple prose doesn't make articles better, just bigger. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 20:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bumping to hopefully get a few more voices heard. Munchvtec (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with Munchvtec. I see no issue with smaller articles if there is sufficient information, and I believe that there is sufficient information for this article, name or otherwise. If this is to be put to a vote, I support it not being deleted. Arcadia warlic (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)