Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kacey counterplan


 * 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.  Kurykh  02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Kacey counterplan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Probably a hoax or an inside joke. No references given; I can't seem to find anything about it with Google. Article created by User:KaceyCP, who has no other edits. —Bkell (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:MADEUP. Jfire (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's where that is. I meant to link to that, too, but I couldn't find it quickly so I didn't. —Bkell (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as unsourced and possibly made up one day due to its claims. Kindly note this quote from the last paragraph - "Most judges do not accept the Kacey Counterplan as legitimate because of its lack of documentation". That says it all, really. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Objection! Delete as obvious trash. JuJube (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS AN OBVIOUSLY TRUE ARGUMENT, This is legit no one would write this much for some joke and why do so many people care for some probally legit argument —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debatefan (talk • contribs) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised the lengths people go to to get their B.S. validated with a Wikipedia entry. Unfortunately, they get found out, just like you are now. JuJube (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for the confusion about the Kacey CP. I didn't intend to cause confusion. This is, like the argument says, a very obscure argument that most people have not heard of. I can't cite any sources, because there are no known ones. If I had an origin, I would cite it. Also, in many cases the "Kacy Counterplan" is simply a nickname for other educational counterplans, but it has its own specific layout that all "Kacey CPs" are based on. If it needs to be deleted, I can understand the technical argument; however, I would appreciate it remaining online. I disagree with the "big deal" (for lack of a better term) that is being attributed to this article, but I can understand where it would look a little "fishy". if anyone can improve the article, by all means, please do so. I may have made some grammatical or theoretical mistakes as I wrote it. Also, there is nothing that makes this argument theoretically invalid, as it is a logical counterplan with a valid enough structure. While I acknowledge that the lack of sources makes this article a candidate for deletion, and I understand this, however, a logical analysis of this article should prove it valid. However, the decision is ultimately not up to me, I can only offer my opinion and intentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaceyCP (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete unless sourced --and perhaps explained more clearly. There might be available sources. At present this is OR.DGG (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2008 (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.