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)