- 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. Please note that sources for an article must be independent. Chick Bowen 22:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOR and WP:V Misterdiscreet 19:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I will go with your assertion that it is not verifiable – a quick web search found no independent non-trivial coverage – but there just might have been printed coverage at some point in its history. There is some claim of notability, although this is not backed up, of course. Adrian M. H. 16:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sources which establish notability are cited. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Several Sources added 01:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.229.170.199 (talk • contribs).
- Press releases may contribute to the content of an article but they don't establish notability. I can make my own press releases just as KeepTalking did but that doesn't make me notable nor does it make KeepTalking notable. Misterdiscreet 03:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Internet landscape in 1995 was notibly different, KeepTalking is most likely the first interactive web service to implement "Avatars" and graphic emoticons, if that doesn't make it notable, I'm not sure what will. (Message board Avatars and smileys didn't arrive until nearly a year later in software like UBB) 05:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.229.170.199 (talk • contribs).
- Without verifiable sources your claims violate WP:NOR Misterdiscreet 05:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shame, there's very little verifiable print on huge chunks of the early web and the original software even predates the Internet archive, the earliest link I can find is from 1996. 05:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.229.170.199 (talk • contribs).
- What would be considered a reliable source on web-only software in early to mid 1995? 06:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.229.170.199 (talk • contribs).
- As I wrote above, there might be some IT magazine/journal articles that covered it – in fact, I would be quite surprised if there were not. What makes the material and its claims of notability difficult to properly verify is the problem of finding those sources after this length of time. Adrian M. H. 16:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't that make the current burden of proof impossible? I remember a ZDNet article about the software, but it was much past the original software launch and is no longer available since C-Net absorbed ZD. Either way, it is possible to obtain a copy of the software, as it was available for trial in 1995 and is most likely archived, combined with the Net Happenings list in Jan 1996 (Remember in 1995/6, NetHappenings was considered a well known information source for Internet software) should be proof enough that the software did exist with the featureset explained in the timeframe listed. Joe User NY 19:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the burden of proof is impossible maybe that means the software is non-notable. You've certainly not presented any evidence to the contrary Misterdiscreet 02:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, it only means that the early commercial Internet wasn't well documented. Pre 1996 only highlights the superstar software, there was no C-Net or ZDNet to review non-packaged software. Joe User NY 14:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Case in point, where is the Wikipedia article for winhttpd? How about O'Reilly's WebSite? Joe User NY 14:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the burden of proof is impossible maybe that means the software is non-notable. You've certainly not presented any evidence to the contrary Misterdiscreet 02:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't that make the current burden of proof impossible? I remember a ZDNet article about the software, but it was much past the original software launch and is no longer available since C-Net absorbed ZD. Either way, it is possible to obtain a copy of the software, as it was available for trial in 1995 and is most likely archived, combined with the Net Happenings list in Jan 1996 (Remember in 1995/6, NetHappenings was considered a well known information source for Internet software) should be proof enough that the software did exist with the featureset explained in the timeframe listed. Joe User NY 19:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without verifiable sources your claims violate WP:NOR Misterdiscreet 05:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What you are asking for in order to "verify" this is completely unreasonable. Wikipedia is supposed to be maintained by the people. There is more than enough mention of KeepTalking in web searches and you can contact the people who wrote the software and hosted the sites if you like. It's a testament to the hypocrisy that Wikipedia has become if you delete this article. I bet if this was some left wing tribute to Al Gore we wouldn't be having this discussion. Use the WayBack machine and you'll be able to verify it's existence back to 1996. Prove what the article says is NOT true before you start deleting things. 16:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 67.183.2.190 18:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence doesn't equate to notable and neither do web searches. And the burden of proof isn't on me - it's on you. Read up on wikipedia's policies. Misterdiscreet 02:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yes, You are right and thank you for proving the point. Web searches do not equate to notable nor do the equate to proof however the ability to speak to the company and the actual programmer who created the software exist. If there is an issue with "credibility" as you put it then speak with them. The copyright for the software goes back to 1995, web searches bring up mention of the software existing in 1995. The fact that it was a web based chat that existed in 1995, even forgetting the fact that it was pretty much the first to deal with smiley's and emoticons, is reason enough for it's small entry to exist here. It's existence is verifiable. You want credibility? Call the company who created it, http://www.unet.net - 212-777-5463. They still exist today yet you claim it's not verifiable? It's a joke. If you want to argue that certain claims within the article are not "verifiable" then fine, the article can be fine tuned to use such words as "claimed", etc however the existence of the software and lack of other web based chat sysytems that employed the same technologies in 1995, the early years of the modern internet is more than reason enough for this entry to exist. The wayback machine proves it's existence then, we can nit pick on other details but that simple fact remains. A web based chat system in 1995 is notable. Perhaps it isn't to YOU but it is to some people.67.183.2.190 18:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind you trying to advance your own opinions, but trying to vote twice is just childish Misterdiscreet 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think he was voting twice, I think the user is just new to the format, hence the extra * and lack of an account. Besides, I should take this time to point out that "this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia". Futhermore, it is obvious the user was not in any way trying to hide his/her identity since they signed the message. And finally, there was no reason to take it to a personal level and call the user childish. It's a debate and part of what this is about. Besides, I think the user makes a very good point, the existance of the product is part of what makes it notable. Joe User NY 20:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- nice of you to put words in my mouth. shows the world how truly civil you are. i did not say 67.183.2.190 was being childish - i said that what he appeared to be doing was childish. there is a big difference. if you want to take that personally, that's your problem - not mine.
- I don't think he was voting twice, I think the user is just new to the format, hence the extra * and lack of an account. Besides, I should take this time to point out that "this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia". Futhermore, it is obvious the user was not in any way trying to hide his/her identity since they signed the message. And finally, there was no reason to take it to a personal level and call the user childish. It's a debate and part of what this is about. Besides, I think the user makes a very good point, the existance of the product is part of what makes it notable. Joe User NY 20:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind you trying to advance your own opinions, but trying to vote twice is just childish Misterdiscreet 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yes, You are right and thank you for proving the point. Web searches do not equate to notable nor do the equate to proof however the ability to speak to the company and the actual programmer who created the software exist. If there is an issue with "credibility" as you put it then speak with them. The copyright for the software goes back to 1995, web searches bring up mention of the software existing in 1995. The fact that it was a web based chat that existed in 1995, even forgetting the fact that it was pretty much the first to deal with smiley's and emoticons, is reason enough for it's small entry to exist here. It's existence is verifiable. You want credibility? Call the company who created it, http://www.unet.net - 212-777-5463. They still exist today yet you claim it's not verifiable? It's a joke. If you want to argue that certain claims within the article are not "verifiable" then fine, the article can be fine tuned to use such words as "claimed", etc however the existence of the software and lack of other web based chat sysytems that employed the same technologies in 1995, the early years of the modern internet is more than reason enough for this entry to exist. The wayback machine proves it's existence then, we can nit pick on other details but that simple fact remains. A web based chat system in 1995 is notable. Perhaps it isn't to YOU but it is to some people.67.183.2.190 18:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- your opinion that an argument is very good is also irrelevant. if it's a good argument, his argument stands without you needed to bolster it by calling it out as "very good". if it's a bad argument, your opinions to the contrary aren't really going to factor into it, anyway.
- and as for your assertion that it's very good. it isn't. it demonstrates the same flawed analysises that has plagged this AfD from the start. it does not matter if the software goes back to 1995. my own life goes back to before 1995. what makes this software more deserving of a wikipedia article then me? longevity is, by itself, is not sufficient. web searches revealing the software existed in 1995 are also irrelevant. google has indexed public records that prove i was born before 1995. that doesn't make me notable nor does it make this software package notable.
- the alleged fact that it was pretty much the first to deal with smiley's and emoticons is a violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. that you say it is so does not make it so. i can say i invented the computer but that does not make it so. if you cannot back a claim up with evidence you have no business making it.
- and as for calling the company to confirm that it was created in 1995 and invented smilies or whatever else - that's absurd. you can call me up and i can confirm that i invented the computer, however, that does not make it so. what does make it so is proof and you have yet to provide any.
- as i said earlier, you and the other keep voter should go and read wikipedia's policies instead of trying to unilaterally rewrite them. Misterdiscreet 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- i should point out that Joe User NY has a clear conflict of interest. look at his edit history. the only article he's contributed to is this in. same goes for 67.183.2.190 and 72.229.170.199. i'm going to recommend all of "you" be invested for violating WP:SOCKPUPPET. Misterdiscreet 23:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, there's no conflict of interest in defending my own article. Second, I am 72.229.170.199, I never said I wasn't and not logging in is not the same as creating a second account, and you'll notice, I voted once. As far as calling me 67.183.2.190, that's insulting. You are taking this personally, you insulted a user by calling their actions childish and you threatened me with being reported.
- Your actions are unbecoming an editor.
- If you want to prove your point, you prove it with facts, you DO NOT prove or disprove something by calling people childish or accusing them of sockpuppetry. You may have made your point, but it's worth noting that most software from that time cannot meet the burden of proof required. Does that mean we should ignore chunks of Internet history or look into changing the policies? You never responded to my other question. Where are the articles on winhttpd and website?
- Interesting how you all seem to edit articles at the same time. Yet more evidence of sock puppetry. About the articles on winhttpd and o'reilly's website - if you feel they should have wikipedia articles, create them and present evidence of notability. they may or may not get nominated for deletion. either way, i don't see the relevance to this AfD Misterdiscreet 00:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence that I am 67.183.2.190 even the time of postings are in most cases hours apart. It's obvious that you do not like having WP policy quoted back to you and you took it personally. I find your behavior despicable. I created the article to fill in a missing piece of Internet history and when asked to defend the article I was instead attacked. Joe User NY 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your last edit looked as though it had been made by two people. Specifically, I thought (apparently incorrectly when looking at the edit history) it was made by two different people. I see, now, that I was wrong on that count and apologize for that Misterdiscreet 01:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apology accepted. All I want is an open debate on the merits of the article and the policy surrounding it. If we can go back to that, I would appreciate it. Joe User NY 01:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to prove your point, you prove it with facts, you DO NOT prove or disprove something by calling people childish or accusing them of sockpuppetry. You may have made your point, but it's worth noting that most software from that time cannot meet the burden of proof required. Does that mean we should ignore chunks of Internet history or look into changing the policies? You never responded to my other question. Where are the articles on winhttpd and website?
- Starting over: Assuming that it's impossible to ever find an early review of the software and the site describing the smileys and avatars, we can find information proving the existence of the software. Is the existence of KeepTalking notable in itself? Considering it's a HTML only web chat server in early 1995 may be enough, in my opinion, to make it notable as one of the first in the field. So, removing the smileys and avatar line from the article until sources can be cited should make the article viable. Joe User NY 03:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article edited. I do not believe there are any facts in dispute. The sources, while in most cases are self-sourced, are not in dispute and should pass WP:V Joe User NY 03:32, 9 July 2007 (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.