This article was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

Hi, could we get a source for this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Posted on external links in the main article. -- Viriditas 10:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cheers. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see this link for the difference between Plurium interrogationum and Trivial objections. -- Viriditas 07:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about an example, anyone? -- 60.231.32.208 07:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

There are numerous examples of trivial objections at the external link provided, however it may be a good idea to include some on the page. -- Viriditas | Talk 08:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Worst. Example. Ever. — mæstro ^{t/ c}, 14:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Is this one better? -- 147.251.53.93 ( talk) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I do not see the relevance of this link (to the Adam Smith Institute). Fishal 20:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The link is also broken, so it was removed. -- 147.251.53.93 ( talk) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply