Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old School Nickelodeon


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Old School Nickelodeon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Has no sources and has been orphaned since 10/2008. There is no official term that is used for these shows. So this is pretty much fancruft Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete I've never heard the term "Old School Nickelodeon" and there aren't even any sources. Str8cash (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Yet more fancruft with only Nick fans caring about this unreferenced nonsense. We're not TV Tropes (and they wouldn't even take this either).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Neogolism or weird fork. Either way not notable. Unsure what speedy criteria would apply though. Shadowjams (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Completely subjective trite nonsense.--WaltCip (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on. I was the one that made the most recent edit before this nomination was proposed. This is neither nonsense nor speedy deletion criteria. Look it up on Google and you'll get over 34,000 hits. That being said, the notability is questionable (its popularity is largely driven by Internet postings) and could definitely use citations. I do not oppose a Delete, but with some sources I do believe the article is salvageable. (I do not know how this lasts over a year with no objections, yet when I try to expand the article to something closer to Wikipedia standards, within hours, it gets nominated for deletion.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk)  13:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, we're not TVTropes. There are no sources in the article. Any serious search isn't going to consist of this one term except for a few select searches. This reads like a poor essay which in my eye consists of a 'Nick was good back then and it's awful now' bent you can find on any Nick forum and is hardly encyclopedic. We should be writing about known topics rather than concepts that exist among a select fanbase that overran the site and posted poor articles about items which are only of interest to a select few before a semblance of control was established over them.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment While that is certainly criteria for deletion, it is not criteria for speedy deletion, which is what you recommended. Nonsense as a criterion for speedy deletion implies an article that is complete gibberish and completely incomprehensible by any method of interpretation, which this article is not. A lack of sources is criteria for deletion, but not speedy deletion. Furthermore, fancruft, in and of itself, is not criteria for deletion. As I stated, I do recommend deletion unless someone comes forward with more reliable sources before this discussion is closed. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge This material is perhaps worth a line or two on the Nickelodeon page, but only with a source.-Cbradshaw (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.