Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infrequently Asked Questions

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. MBisanz ^talk 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infrequently Asked Questions

article is full of original research on an unnotable topic. It has already been suggested to be deleted before. じんない 07:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, original research, no reliable sources. - Damian Doyle (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request more information please. You say "It has already been suggested to be deleted before" -- but I don't see a PROD in the history of the article and I'm not aware of a previous AfD. If there is no previous AfD, why didn't you just PROD it? And if there is one, please could you link it? --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested on the talk page by another user a while back. I found this when assessing the backlog of articles needing importance rating for WP:VG. History log has shown no effort to source anything since the comment was made. While it may be possible to cite some examples of someone posting an IFAQ from a reliable source, I highly doubt anything ecyclopedic worthy will be found. Even then, most of those would be SPS about themselves or something they're interested in.じんない 22:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems like original research bonanza, unless there's some proper sources this should really go.--Peephole (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete any original research and clean up the page--but I think this is a notable topic that warrants a small, simple page. Not only is it a frequently-recycled joke, but it shows up as a rhetorical device in the scholarly literature: [1], [2], in addition to the computer game world, and also on the famous Donald Knuth's personal site: [3]. Cazort (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find where in those first to they refer to ifaqs or "Infrequently asked questions". As to the latter, that does not show notability and hardly any verifiability except that they do exist, which is not enough for Wikipedia's standards.じんない 01:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BURDEN because I can't find any reliable sources to suggest this is notable. But I do think the nominator should have tried a {{subst:prod|reason}} first.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn gamercruft. humourous but not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least the current version, per what Wikipedia is not which includes original research and what seems to be promotion for GameIAQs. No prejudice toward recreation using the sources mentioned above, which is in a different context than what the current state contains. MuZemike 21:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge to Donald Knuth? SharkD (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2009 (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.