- 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 merge to Talker#History of talkers. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Cat Chat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Back in 2010 User:Robofish proposed this for deletion with the following rationale: "Non-notable internet service. Despite the claim of notability ('first ever talker'), I can't find coverage in reliable sources which substantiates it." Then User:Chaos5023 added some refs and deprodded it. While I commend his referencing job, the article still seems to fail WP:NSOFT: the references are mentions in passing, and they don't amount to more then 2-3 sentences on this obscure piece of software, which may belong on the list of MUDs, but doesn't seem to have much stand-alone notability. Or perhaps this could be just merged to Talker, where it can remain in its current form - as the first ever talker (which is cool, but the sources don't seem to discuss it in any detail beyond this qualifier). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to Talker#History of talkers. The references in the article are enough to support the claim that this was the first of its kind, but 6 years on it still doesn't seem to me notable enough to merit its own article. Merging it into the main article, as proposed by the nominator, seems like the best solution here. Robofish ( talk) 20:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge, as above. Dearth of reliable sourcing, notable only in context of the genre's history. I'd merge the other talkers into that article as well. czar 07:44, 29 April 2016 (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.
- 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 merge to Talker#History of talkers. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Cat Chat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Back in 2010 User:Robofish proposed this for deletion with the following rationale: "Non-notable internet service. Despite the claim of notability ('first ever talker'), I can't find coverage in reliable sources which substantiates it." Then User:Chaos5023 added some refs and deprodded it. While I commend his referencing job, the article still seems to fail WP:NSOFT: the references are mentions in passing, and they don't amount to more then 2-3 sentences on this obscure piece of software, which may belong on the list of MUDs, but doesn't seem to have much stand-alone notability. Or perhaps this could be just merged to Talker, where it can remain in its current form - as the first ever talker (which is cool, but the sources don't seem to discuss it in any detail beyond this qualifier). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to Talker#History of talkers. The references in the article are enough to support the claim that this was the first of its kind, but 6 years on it still doesn't seem to me notable enough to merit its own article. Merging it into the main article, as proposed by the nominator, seems like the best solution here. Robofish ( talk) 20:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge, as above. Dearth of reliable sourcing, notable only in context of the genre's history. I'd merge the other talkers into that article as well. czar 07:44, 29 April 2016 (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.