Talk:Jōta Mishina

Missing information
I am asking these questions for both this character and the other one on the cemetry:
 * 1. Can we identify the gender with the name (Sukezō & Jōta)?
 * 2. Can we say that they were shinobi? Is the cemetry really only for shinobi or also for "normal" citizens? Idontcareaboutmyname (talk) 16:59, February 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this article even worth having ? We don't need articles for random dead people. >_> --Speysider Talk Page 17:01, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Name --> article. That's how this always worked or am I mistaken? Idontcareaboutmyname (talk) 17:12, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we literally have nothing on this guy, except that he's dead. If there was actually more on him (eg a picture or some display of his abilities), then I'd be keeping this: but there's nothing. I don't see the value of keeping this around tbh. --Speysider Talk Page 17:40, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't think a pic is needed. Munchvtec (talk) 16:49, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't think this article is needed. Seelentau 愛議 18:05, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that in situations like this, we can do what we do for unnamed clan members: just mention them at a central article (in this case, the cemetery article, and put a references. A trivia point like, "Among the ones buried are: person #87, dude #109 and girl #902". Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 18:13, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * As tiny and insignificant as it may be, the character has a name and this is a wikia. Name = article. I don't think we should go over minor articles just because they are minor. This guy here got his article as well and nobody bats an eye. Idontcareaboutmyname (talk) 18:15, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, he is insignificant to mention on this wiki as a full article, it's pointless..... And thanks for linking to that page, I'll just place a delete tag on it now. --Speysider Talk Page 18:17, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious, i thought as long as there's a name then there'e an article. It's always been that way hasn't it? Munchvtec (talk) 19:07, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. But that doesn't make it correct, the same way another article of this kind doesn't make this article any more valid. Seelentau 愛議 19:25, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Alright whatever, I don't see why you guys have to make an argument over everything. Just delete it. Munchvtec (talk) 19:27, February 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * It's called a "discussion". --Speysider Talk Page 19:32, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

JUST DELETE IT!!! Munchvtec (talk) 19:34, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Calm down Munchvtec. If dead characters with a name don't get an article, why does these two have one? And, when I am at it, him? This article has the most fishy information possible, everything, starting from his image, is pure guessing. Does he also get deleted and a triva note in the Senju Clan article? Idontcareaboutmyname (talk) 20:15, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

I thought everyone was against these characters. Munchvtec (talk) 13:59, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between only having a name and having a name and a face, the looks, relationships and some story. While I agree that an encyclopedia should contain each and every information, there are multiple ways to write down these information and in this case, an article for a name is not the best way. Seelentau 愛議 14:09, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't have an issue with this article. Is it necessary - no it isn't but in the same vein does it detract from the wikia? It doesn't do that either. It isn't necessary to delete it but if it's mentioned in the cemetery's article, that's fine with them.--Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 14:11, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with cerez, the article/page isn't hurting anyone is it? Munchvtec (talk) 14:14, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

If you delete these pages you might as well delete all those fairly new academy students that were added from a part one filler right sense they have almost nothing. Munchvtec (talk) 14:31, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

For example Hajiki. Munchvtec (talk) 14:31, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Missing information: conclusion
Well. I am still against deleting these articles since there are many others with little or insifnificant information too and those stay untouched. Nevertheless, if you guys want to get rid of them, then let's reach a consensus. Let them stay or delete them? Idontcareaboutmyname (talk) 15:51, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

alright well I do agree with you on that but I feel like we haven't talked about this for a while now because they were to be left. There was no deletion tag on these pages anymore so why bring up this again? But I do agree with you. Munchvtec (talk) 15:55, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * I still see the deletion tag. Idontcareaboutmyname (talk) 15:57, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was still up for deletion so never mind but I agree with keeping these articles. Munchvtec (talk) 15:58, April 1, 2014 (UTC)