Talk:Natural Energy Baton

Necessary?
Is this article really needed? Seems a bit unnecessary/basic and I don't really see any qualifying factors that make it stand out. Hitting someone to get rid of Sage Mode training imbalances seem a bit too minor. -Ventillate { About Me | Message | My Work } 13:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While I do think it's a rather unique tool, I do agree it's very minor. Are we going to make an article on the special oil as well? Other than getting this to show up in a couple infoboxes, the paragraph in Sage Mode's article already tells all there is about it. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 01:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to know what exactly the criteria are for what determines what deserves a page or not. My intentions were to highlight the tool as it was unique and featured unique properties. I do agree, however, that the oil is as good as any landmark and could settle being added to the Toad Mountain and Sage Mode pages. So would you say it is preferable to simply make a note on Fukasaku's page about the Baton? Is this the reason we've not made a page for other things like Isshiki's rods? Don't forget pages like Shadow Clone Summoning Scroll, Mechanical Bird, and Cat Ears. I can't say this is outside of our normal practise. --Koto Talk Page-My Contributions 04:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The criteria is whatever Omni wants to do, also seeing as not enough people care enough to discuss or vote about these things. The excuse that articles cannot exist because most of the content can be found elsewhere is nonsense. Has never stopped us before, or rather, it does randomly through article bias. I believe the article is unique and should remain, or we should go through and also delete many other equipment articles.Munchvtec (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You say other articles should be deleted, but if ever somebody calls your bluff and proposes they be deleted, you consistently argue against your own suggestion. Weird.
 * There's nothing to stop the wiki from having an article for every topic under the sun. An article for glasses? Obviously they're essential on some level to the combat abilities of those who wear them. Naruto's orange shirt? It's iconic and has even memorably been worn by Boruto; that's two main characters wearing the same article of clothing. Blood? Most characters have shed it at one point or another, and it has various in-universe applications that could be indexed. Oxygen? I suppose fire jutsu wouldn't work without it, and it apparently can be found on the surface of the moon. And so on.
 * The problem, of course, is these would be dumb articles. None of them would have any deep Naruto-specific nuance to be detailed; they would merely exist for the sake of existing. I personally find it annoying if, when reading a wiki, I'm linked to an article that is no more informative on its subject than the article that linked to it was. Would that happen here? I think so:
 * "The toads also have a special staff that, when struck with, knocks all the natural energy out of the gatherer, thus reversing any transformations before they can become permanent and the user turns to stone."
 * "Fukasaku wields a staff capable of beating the natural energy out of a person on contact."
 * "Fukasaku beat him (and his shadow clones) with a staff to keep him from taking in too much natural energy."
 * This article does not tell me anything that these three sentences do not also tell me. This article's only unique piece of information is the chapter/episode debut, but this would be easily remedied by having references in those other articles (which the wiki should be using anyway). So nothing of value would be lost if this article were deleted.
 * To return to the broader issue: the wiki will always have some level of arbitrariness between the articles it does and doesn't keep. We could try to create some sort of minimum standard, but those can be gamed if someone tries hard enough; when I was a sysop, I'd sometimes try using article length as a minimum requirement, but it turns out people can write breathtakingly long paragraphs about characters' appearances in order to inflate page size. But just because the line is difficult to pin down doesn't mean it isn't there, and the existence of other bad articles should not be used as a rationale to create/keep additional bad articles. If somebody feels that an article doesn't have enough content to justify its existence, they should propose it be deleted; I'd probably agree, and Munchvtec probably would not. ~SnapperTo 22:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Not a bluff. You bring up a silly argument, and I'll humor it. None of that is the same as this, and you ultimately agree however, that wasn't your point of course. I will argue against a deletion when that deletion affects consistency, it has little to do with my personal feelings. I'm hardly around on this wiki these days. If more than two or three people want to actually discuss a change in consistency, and they follow through with it, then it is what it is, and it should be carried out across the wiki. You guys let less pass, simple as that. You guys are also the same people who claim other articles should not be used as examples. Weird. Create a consistency. Nice to see you btw, Snapper. Hope you've been well. Wonder whatever happened to that big discussion about a new crat. Munchvtec (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I only remember these discussions, where you proposed some character articles be deleted. One additional user agreed with you, I agreed with you, so I deleted them. But then you'll notice you later said, "they should probably all be created again." This led me to believe that you don't actually want any article deleted for any reason.
 * Other articles shouldn't be used as evidence for/against in deletion discussions because it ends up creating a loop:
 * Somebody proposes that Article A be deleted.
 * Somebody else opposes the deletion on the grounds that Article B exists; they make no claims that Article A is actually good, only that it's no more bad than Article B.
 * So then somebody says that's a valid point and they propose Article B also be deleted.
 * But then somebody comes along and says you can't delete Article B because Article A exists.
 * In this scenario, there's evidently no dispute that both articles are unnecessary, but they inexplicably can't be deleted because they both exist at the same time. To prevent this circular gridlock from happening, articles should be evaluated on their own merits, not the merits of other meritless articles. ~SnapperTo 23:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does the discussion about the criteria for a good and bad article begin? What makes a good article? While you have a point, I don't agree that anyone is arguing under an unrelated premise. Look above, I used the example of the Shadow Clone Summoning Scroll to make a point that articles of similar "importance" are not receiving the same treatment. Overall, I'd like to discuss a standard to prevent the discouraging of new articles on the basis of "I don't feel like I like this one". Consistency is definitely important and shouldn't be broken because of a few personal preferences. --Koto Talk Page-My Contributions 23:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors generally only monitor Special:RecentChanges and only become aware of content from that. This article, because it was just created, has gained attention. The scroll article, because it was created in 2011 and hasn't been edited since 2018, has largely been forgotten about. So it isn't so much that this article is receiving undue scrutiny as it is the scroll article is receiving none.
 * I mentioned before that I think articles should be more informative about their topic than the articles that link to that topic would be. I've used that standard in previous deletion discussions and believe it can be applied consistently for any subject. This article doesn't meet that standard, the three articles you linked don't meet that standard, and I'm sure a number of other articles on the wiki also do not meet it. Ergo, these and other articles can and should be deleted. ~SnapperTo 23:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)