User talk:Trialsanderrors/FEQ

As an admin who has repeatedly rejected this kind of argumentation in closing AfD debates, I should like to say "thank you very much for this well written non-essay". It encapsulates things very nicely indeed. -Splash - tk 17:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

hey. cool discursive entity.
I think I have a pretty decent conception of notability, tho I typically come down as what people would probly call a hardline "inclusionist". question:

when you said "those who use it [notability]" do you mean those who cite it as a criteria for deletion? and ''This subject has not received enough outside attention that I could write a balanced article on it without ever having heard of it before.

couldn't someone else write it, tho? McKzzFizzer 19:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On 1. Yes, although I should modify it because a lot of editors take a "notability by numbers" approach, which the notability guidelines seem to endorse, but which isn't covered by policy. We're not the ones who should set yardsticks on includability, only to set yardsticks on the reliability of sources. On 2. It's a position everyone should take (minus science articles maybe, which also require a level of expertise). ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Essay category?
If this is not an essay, why is it in the Category:Wikipedia essays?--24.20.69.240 06:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)