Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lix Tetrax
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. (Remember to list these on WP:CP, please; don't just apply the template.) —Korath (Talk) 04:37, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Lix Tetrax
This article is a verbatim copy from the first two (of 118) google hits, here and here (according to which, this article is a verbatim copy of a scrap of paper someone found in their attic). In addition, it is non-notable. The Demon and Demonology provide good sources of information on demons, and if more information is needed, it should be added to either of these. Halidecyphon 05:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If you see a copyvio, you can mark it as such, as I have done just now. Dave the Red (talk) 07:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks dave, but I didn't mark this copyvio because I wasn't sure it was. The fact that the material was available on many different sites with no reference on any made me suspect this material was not protected by copyright. The anonymous user could also have been the original author. Either way, it should be deleted for being non-enclopedic. Halidecyphon 11:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- We generally view anything from another site as a copyvio unless there is an explicit release to GFDL. RickK 21:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Aha, I'll bear that in mind. Sure makes things easy! --Halidecyphon 22:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- We generally view anything from another site as a copyvio unless there is an explicit release to GFDL. RickK 21:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks dave, but I didn't mark this copyvio because I wasn't sure it was. The fact that the material was available on many different sites with no reference on any made me suspect this material was not protected by copyright. The anonymous user could also have been the original author. Either way, it should be deleted for being non-enclopedic. Halidecyphon 11:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
