Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compost cup

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. AdjustShift (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compost cup[edit]

Contested prod, but patent nonsense which should probably have gone speedily. Speedy Delete. I42 (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. WP:NONSENSE. Pburka (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but doesn't qualify as patent nonsense. (Possible G3, however). Only things showing up for this are you tube videos; 0 gnews hits, most non-wiki ghits are for compostable drinking cups.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No sources or references, you can be pretty sure this is patent nonsense. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The CSD criteria "Patent nonsense" means that the text is literally incomprehensible, which is not the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A definiton of WP:NONSENSE is "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". I find this to be the case here. For example, you will see that the contest supposedly started in 2007, is run annually, and the 2009 event is yet to take place - meaning there have so far been two such events. This makes the line "it is vital that this foul is kept to a minimum as this is proved year in year out" (my emphasis) patent nonsense. I42 (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patent nonsense specifically excludes poor writing -- seems to me that this is either a case of poor writing or exageration, in which case G3 could apply. Still not speediable as patent nonsense, though.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a speedy-- as pointed out in this debate, these fellows have their own YouTube video [1], although not enough sense to have mentioned it in the article. The page is, essentially, an attempt to be funny by someone who lacks the ability to be funny. Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable cup. Giant Snowman 13:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment i believe after researching the page this is a genuine attempt to develop a tournament. doing some research i discovered they have genuine sponsorship and regulations to play. deleting the page would be short minded and restricting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryEgsited (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC) — VeryEgsited (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Then feel free to add sources to the article that will help it meet WP:V and WP:N.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 9 June 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.