Talk:Eyes: Difference between revisions
(→Deletion: new section) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== Deletion == | == Deletion == | ||
This page is entirely unnecessary, and I feel it should be deleted. If we are going to have a REAL article about eyes, then we will need to document all instances of eyes, their composition, their biology, their uses, and many other things. This page is a burden to our Wiki and is quite frankly somewhat stupid. If we want to get more specific, and reference UNUSUAL eyes that are significant outside of the fact that they are just a pair of eyes, then that's a different thing. But for now, I think this page should be removed. --[[User:Xizor|Xizor]] 19:32, 8 November 2011 (EST) | This page is entirely unnecessary, and I feel it should be deleted. If we are going to have a REAL article about eyes, then we will need to document all instances of eyes, their composition, their biology, their uses, and many other things. This page is a burden to our Wiki and is quite frankly somewhat stupid. If we want to get more specific, and reference UNUSUAL eyes that are significant outside of the fact that they are just a pair of eyes, then that's a different thing. But for now, I think this page should be removed. I've also protected the main page. --[[User:Xizor|Xizor]] 19:32, 8 November 2011 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 00:32, 9 November 2011
I
Just found out this isn't really spam. Its actually an object in the series so doensn't need to be deleted.--Brandondorf9999 17:36, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Deletion
This page is entirely unnecessary, and I feel it should be deleted. If we are going to have a REAL article about eyes, then we will need to document all instances of eyes, their composition, their biology, their uses, and many other things. This page is a burden to our Wiki and is quite frankly somewhat stupid. If we want to get more specific, and reference UNUSUAL eyes that are significant outside of the fact that they are just a pair of eyes, then that's a different thing. But for now, I think this page should be removed. I've also protected the main page. --Xizor 19:32, 8 November 2011 (EST)