Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feraliminal Lycanthropizer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feraliminal Lycanthropizer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Feraliminal Lycanthropizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article is "a fictional machine invented by American writer David Woodard" in a (self-published) pamphlet. While the article lists 11 different sources, all of them appear to be of trivial nature, only mentioning the name Feraliminal Lycanthropizer and, at best, quoting some information from Woodard's pamphlet. Some of the sources even point out that this fictional machine "is hardly remarkable" (see the Talk page for more detail). None of those sources appears to be a "non-trivial work" with an actual focus, which is the barometer of notability of Wikipedia. 1904.CC (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or Redirect to David Woodard. This is part of a multi-year promotional campaign that affected nearly every single edition of Wikipedia; see User:Grnrchst/David Woodard report for details. I'm happy for it to be removed on this reason alone. (So, admittedly, I haven't done a deep search for new sources - please ping me if anyone finds something and I'll have a better look.) -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: It's discussed here [1], [2], here [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your contribution! But I cannot find among those sources a non-trivial work that would demontrate notability. Your source Nr 1 is a text by Woodard himself, so it's not an independent source. Nr 2 (Experimental Musical Instruments, Volume 14) is accessible on Internet Archive, and you can see it's just a link to Woodards site among a list of "Web Sites of Interest". The topic of the Feraliminal Lycanthropizer isn't discussed or analyzed. Nr 3 is a short review of the "small-format B&W zine" Dainty Viscera, where Woodard published his pamphlet anonymously (primary source), and just mentions the name of the Lycanthropizer without any further detail. I think those sources cannot qualify as non-trivial work. Therefore they don't establish the notability of the Feraliminal Lycanthropizer. 1904.CC (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's an impressive-looking article, but like all things Woodard, if you look closely it's all fluff supported by references that are very far from WP:RS. Asamboi (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is interesting primary research, but Wikipedia doesn't publish original content. Bearian (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per asilvering. -Roxy the dog 08:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and other editors' conclusions. The article was created by a sockpuppet, since blocked, and has had a total of one banned and three blocked editors contributing to it. Woodward's biography article in 31 languages has been accused of being a self-promotion spamming campaign, of which this article is part. 5Q5|^✉ 10:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article subject doesn’t have any claim to notability. Zach^H007 18:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the lead of the article almost helps to serve as further justification for deletion, but most especially after a source review leaves one coming up empty. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.