Deletion of Old School Nickelodeon

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Essays (WP:ESSAY)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Patent nonsense (WP:PN||WP:FANCRUFT)