Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planes of existence (chat site)

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 of the debate was an eye-bleeding barrage of text. But it looks like keep is the verdict. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 04:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Planes of existence (chat site) 1.1 Precedent set already 1.2 Current tally 1.3 Zoo Code page? 1.4 What to do if this is deleted

[edit] Planes of existence (chat site)

• Dead nn chat site. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Why delete it? Not notable enough? You don't like to list chat sites? I guess if lintilla isn't listed then this one shouldn't be either, because lintilla was way more popular than this one, and was around for a lot longer too. 203.122.225.241 17:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Took a while for your comment to show up. Why is it non-notable though? What's the criteria? It had over 10,000 users per day for a period of 7 years, had over 50 spin off chat sites that cite this as its basis for existence, and helped to change political systems. I would have thought that that was notable. 203.122.225.241 17:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --PhilipO 18:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed the nominator got rid of the External Links section. A convenient way to push for a deletion, methinks. Granted they are dead links, but that's where they were held. As stated previously, there was a court case forcing the deletion of a lot of it, and the remainder were either deleted because the accounts became inactive or else they were on free servers that delete things after a while. Still worth keeping the links there though.

If you are going to delete it then fine, but at least give a sensible reason why. If it is policy not to list chat sites, or that there is a certain criteria of popularity, then fine. But list it please. I mean, without knowing what the criteria was, I would have thought that 10,000 users per day for 7 years equated to notoriety. Not to mention the controversy involved in it, or the links that it gave.

It's not like this was just some random chat site that someone made as a pet project that was never popular, nobody ever went to, and no programming ever went in to it. I know that such places exist. This was one that influenced tens of thousands of lives. There are probably more notable chat sites but not a lot of them. It was probably on par with Crossroads or Lintilla with notoriety, but probably not as notable as Surfers.

Again, if this is a matter of not being notable enough, then fine, but *PLEASE* quote your sources! For heaven's sakes! Just arbitrarily getting rid of it like this is atrocious. If nothing else, that took me 2 hours to write! 2 hours out of my life! If I'd known I was writing it just for it to be deleted on the spot, then I wouldn't have written it.

If someone wrote a history of chat site culture, they would include this. Is there such a thing on wikipedia? I know, nowadays people don't much use talkers. People use MSN messenger or Yahoo or ICQ. But people used to use them a lot from 1993-1998 or thereabouts, and this one was one of the big ones out there back then. It is historically important if you want to understand such things as the evolution to ICQ and things like that.

But hey, if you consider it to be non-notable, then go ahead. Delete it. At least it was only 2 hours of work, hey.

And delete my links, so that it looks like original research.

Hope you get a kick out of destroying people's work there, buddy, cos there's nothing constructive in deleting something like this. 203.122.225.241 19:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• The article does assert some notability, but its current content is patently non-encyclopedic. Delete unless completely rewritten, and verified. - Mike Rosoft 20:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Okay I have written lintilla (chat site) with some links that verify that one. Now, the two of these (along with Sleepy's multiple worlds, Fantasia's multiple worlds and Crystal Palace (chat site)) are all equally notable. Now, you can verify lintilla with active links, and you can see clearly the link to this one in the chain. If you delete this one due to notoriety then you have to delete lintilla. So go and have a look at that one, and if you think that lintilla isn't notable enough to keep, then neither is this one, and they both should be deleted. You really need to validate what constitutes notoriety before making something like an AFD.

If its a matter of references, or how its written, then fine. But please remove the AFD and give it time. Once I've written the other 4 pages, then it'll all be pieced together nicely. This is the most important piece in the puzzle of them all, but they all need to be written. But if you are going to delete this one then I obviously won't bother.

Even nominating this is ridiculous.

• Speedy keep please, but feel free to come back in a month or so and have a look.

203.122.225.241 20:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry lots of comments here. Okay, I rewrote the whole lot. Just made it very clear, crystal clear in fact, as to why it is notable. I had to swallow a lot of pride on that one, but so be it. I am sure that you will agree that it is encyclopaedic. If you agree that it is notable, and hence worth keeping, then and only then will I add in the huge chunks of history, and then only when its proven to be notable. As stated before, I really have to write the other 4 pages first before doing that, because they all tie in together. But I will make sure that this gets a Keep on the AFD before doing all of that, just to make sure that Wikipedia approves. 203.122.225.241 21:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Verify if possible, Delete if not. I don't recall ever having heard of any of these, and I've been around MUDs and MUCKs and IRC and so on. If this information can be independently verified, and the articles brought up to Wikipedia standards, great. Otherwise I don't think they should be deleted just because they no longer exist. I mean, PowWow (chat program) is long dead (in Internet time), but because of its influence, IT warrants an article. --JohnDBuell 00:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought that the lintilla links verify this. Its just that they wouldn't be appropriate to list here directly, because it would stop it being encyclopaedic. I can prove that it existed by referencing old talker lists (some of which haven't been updated since 1999!), and there's 10 or 15 web pages that go on to talk a bit about it, but none in great depth. I don't see why you'd want to link them here though, because its not encyclopaedic. Do a google search for "Planes of Existence" and "talker" and you'll see them all. 203.122.225.241 02:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I have heard of PoE, although not Lintilla. I got to this article while trying to research a bit of history I remembered. I'd say that it's useful. Talkers aren't / weren't as well-known as MUDs, IRC, etc, but still have their place in "technosocial" history. Articles describing some of the most notable talkers, then, would be good things to have. If keeping isn't an option, then perhaps this (along with other notable talkers) should be merged into the Talkers article. Piquan 08:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC) User's only 15th edit

Comment: I don't see why you would delete this, as it is an important part of describing the history of the internet. It helps to tie the link in development from when we had talkers, MUDs and IRC to when we ended up with ICQ and instant messenger programs. Whilst it came about during a period where talkers as a whole were not particularly popular (and the short-lived web-based chats were), it was the most popular of these talkers at the time, and helped to provide that smooth follow through to the next stage, of instant messengers. After instant messengers, we then had online journals such as LiveJournal and blogspot which in turn led to the reintroduction of online forums, including wikipedia itself. This page represents a missing link which ties it all together, and is an important, if not essential, part of wikipedia. In a sense, it helps to form the history of wikipedia itself. If it is deleted, then people would not be able to adequately understand the history of what led to us to where we are today in the internet. Zordrac 13:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I think that User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson is using this as a soapbox for personal attacks. Zordrac 20:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Tisk, tisk. Who's not assuming good faith? See my talk page for the relevant discussion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edits only confirm my suspicions. I am not interested in an argument with you. I am interested in writing arguments. I did not ever pretend that I did not create this article, and did not use a sock puppet. Your statements and accusations are proven to be unfounded. Your usage of this as an attempt to launch personal attacks is not something that I will buy in to. Zordrac 21:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Right now, I'm inclined to delete all of this for one reason: The articles lack any reliable sources. There are lots of accusations and lots of chat-politicking, but nothing that indicates where that information came from. This suggests original research on the part of the article writer, which is not allowed. Remove the unverified bits and you're left with... that this was an adult chat site that people used. If the author can rewrite and source the article, I'll consider keeping on the merits. FCYTravis 23:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Update - its not easy to scour the web for references to something that doesn't exist anymore, but I managed it, and included a lot of links, which reference its influence on popular culture (amongst other things). I am amazed that some people are still disputing that this has notoriety, but so be it. It certainly is not original research, and has been referenced many times. Zordrac 23:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Update - very exciting. I found a thing called a "Way back when" internet archive, which has some links to official Planes of Existence pages, so I put them in in the links. I also had some from Fantasia's old pages which reference PoE. Zordrac 01:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I know you guys like it when you see wikicity projects talk about articles, so here's this one - [1] that talks about Planes Of Existence's influence on Zoophilia (it's in German). I don't know if that impresses you or not that that kind of thing exists, but it certainly asserts notoriety. Zordrac 01:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment = I've also put in there a few other *independent* links that demonstrate that Planes of Existence influenced places outside of their general user demographic, and indeed outside of talkers generally. Zoocode is one great example of that. That was created by 2 Planes of Existence users. Zordrac 01:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I must apologise that the page now just looks like a bunch of links, and assertions of notoriety. I guess that i am just trying to make sure that this passes the Vfd. If you guys would kindly remove the tag, I'll add a bit more general substance to the article, to make it more encyclopaedic. It is just because certain people seem to be questioning its notoriety and/or that it is original research. Remove the tag and I will pad out the article more. IMO a Vfd tag should not be allowed to be put on newly created articles made in good faith, as they should be given at least a month to be written properly. I believe that this is the main problem here. Vfd tag put in far too quickly influenced vote. Zordrac 01:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Update - Thanks to the glorious internet archive, I managed to find archive page from the founder of Planes of Existence's personal homepage which talk about some of the controversies. I know its a personal homepage, but it was linked off the official site and does reference evidence. Have still been unable to source the 1996-1999 version of the official site, under original owners. Will keep looking. But I hope that this puts an end for good to the claims of non-notoriety, lack of references, and all of the other silly claims being made here. Zordrac 12:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - According to The Internet Archive FAQ, sites are archived based on their Alexa rating, which in turn is a basis for determining notoriety of webpages in WP:WEB. This was primarily a talker, however, but based on WP:WEB, it establishes notoriety on the web page alone, by being listed in the way back machine. I know, this has already been proven to be notable already, but I thought that this was notable. Zordrac 15:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:WEB: # Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members; or

Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better. This is only to be brought into consideration if no other means of justifying a website's article can be found. - forum size had 100,000 unique members, and while I don't really understand what an Alexa ranking is, the above link suggests that it had a high ranking. Zordrac 16:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, does seem to meet WP:WEB, as well as being notable outside the direct scope of that. Turnstep 19:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm not convinced these are not notable, and thus will not vote delete. However, there is no way I'm voting keep with the current information. Could someone involved reference the openening sentence specifically? (10,000 users / day, etc) The spin offs section should probably include those that are referenced (Plane of Women, etc). Altogether pathetic references for supposed 10,000+ users across 3 years. Indeed google for "planes of existence" shows only 100,000 links, with zero relevant on the first page! Perhaps this population of users was occupied with other passtimes. By the way, the comperable Crystal Palace (chat site) has an alexa a little past 2.7 million. ∴ here…♠ 21:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Plane of Women was a part of the talker. There were 10 talkers - Plane of Wisdom, Magic/Mysticism, Madness, Love, Lust/Extroversion, Animals, Women, Men, Peace/Dolphins and Darkness/Dungeon (they changed names over time). These are not spin offs. They were a part of the talker. As for the 10,000 users per day, well, it was in the system logs. And besides which, it was much more popular than Crystal Palace. As for your search, you should realise that planes of existence refers to astral travel. This makes it extremely difficult to search for links about it. Its also been ended for quite some time. I am trying to get links, but its not easy to get them all. If you like, I can remove the 10,000 users per day bit, and instead put in that it was the most popular talker on talker.com from 1996-1999 (Crystal Palace is also on talker.com and was then). Zordrac 23:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It was also called a huge number of different names. "POE", as well as abbreviations for each of the 10 planes, including "POA", "POD", "POW", "POM", "POL" and others. People called it "plain" and often just called it "Madness" and left out the plane altogether, or PoE and so forth. Makes it ridiculously difficult to search for it. Zordrac 23:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, just elaborating on the system logs bit. They produced automatic stats of user numbers and popularity. A lot of talkers do this. 10,000 was the average. It got as high as 18,000. Oh, but it wasn't 18,000 on at a time or anything. I think the most on at a time was about 300. That's just how many different users logged in at some time during the day. Zordrac 23:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Update: I've done the history of talkers on talker as well as updating online chat to include this, and have also added pages for other important chat sites, Cat Chat (talker), Cheesehouse (talker), Resort (talker), Surfers (talker), Foothills (talker), and ew-too (the code base used on the early ones). I've also included less popular Crossroads (chat site) and Lighthouse (chat site). All of this is very stubby, but this is just so tiring to do all of this. I've also referenced a lot of official history of talkers in doing this, to put it all in to perspective. And I've referenced Alexa a fair bit. According to Alexa, right now Sleepy's multiple worlds is the 3rd most popular web site that is under the category "talker" (behind Surfer's and Resort). I tried to get Alexa rankings for 1996 and such but was unable to. Of course, that doesn't make it the 3rd most popular talker necessarily, but its a good hint. Isn't in the top 100,000 web sites though, but that is not a surprise, since talkers are not web sites, and rarely have a web site component at all. Hence Alexa rankings are somewhat irrelevant. Zordrac 11:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Update: I've been padding out some of the stubby articles and have discovered another notable talker, Ncohafmatu, although I question its assertion as the first major NUTS talker ahead of Crossroads (chat site). Nonetheless, I added a redlink and might fill it in later. I think that the dates suggest that it came after Crossroads, but it was probably the first NUTS talker that was created by Neil Robertson, who wrote NUTS, and hence is probably notable enough for inclusion.

I've also gone to a few other places that referenced Planes of existence, including the article on zoophilia to add links to the planes of existence, with regards to 3 existing assertions made in the article:

1. That talkers are the main way that zoophiles get together, but that they are rarely advertised publicly. That's not true, as Planes of existence, lintilla and sleepy's, all with zoophile ports, advertised this very publicly and were listed on most major talker listings.
2. That in the late 1990s and early 2000s most of the major zoophile talkers shut down. Plane of animals was the only major zoophile talker that shut down over this period of time, so I linked to it. It was also the most popular of the zoophile talkers that were about at the time.
3. I added the link to zoo code, which is an important part of the identity of being a zoophile, and made a link back to planes of existence because it was created by users on the planes of existence (as referenced in the code itself).

This is of course a debatable issue. In some ways, doing so can be used to assert notoriety to this article, and hence why it cannot be deleted. However, some may view it as trying to influence the vote. So I thought to report it here, in case anyone disputes my validity in being able to do this. Zordrac 14:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I just realised that when Neil Robertson made Nuts (Talker), the most popular talker base in history, in 1992, it was done as a school project about the history of talkers. He was asked to write his own version of a talker, which was based on UNaXcess, one of the early intranet talkers, and he didn't realise that ew-too already existed or that talkers were now on the internet. So, just imagine that in the future sometime someone else is asked to do a project on the history of talkers, to develop something else. If they don't have these kind of resources to investigate it, it might not happen. This whole area might not be overly popular, and might never have been all that popular, in comparison to IRC or newsgroups which it competed with early on, and especially not in comparison to ICQ, instant messenger, World Wide Web and so forth that were about later (and now). However, it may still be used for a project by someone. Deleting something of historical significance may prevent future projects.

By the way, I added in one of the early controversies on Surfers (talker) about the stolen code. Its an important part of the history. As are the wars that the early talkers had with their universities, who refused to host them! LOL. Zordrac 18:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I moved this from the talk page. It seems they went to the wrong spot Don't delete or merge. It's ok as a standalone, although an introduction with a definition of some of the terms used later ("worlds", "talkers", etc.) would be fitting. I don't know where to find the criteria for deletion here, so if anyone can point me to a link, that'd be nice. Also the references to zoophilia are slightly excesive and not too relevant, maybe some editing is in order, but not a flat out deletion. Now I know what PoE was, and finding out random stuff is kinda the point of an encyclopedia, no? PoE is deffinetly a historical reference to the beggining of talkers, and the internet culture in general. Why delete our own recent history? User: JuliusBonapart unsigned comment by User: JuliusBonapart put on talk page by accident

Comment: Great suggestions! I have fixed up the article with relation to the tips. I just have the small link to zoo code listed in influence (its been established by its apparent creator that it wasn't that big a deal), and got rid of the fan sites (the fact that it had a lot of users and was popular isn't really the point here, and determining its popularity is irrelevant with regards to its relevance). I've also put in a basic history, focussing primarily on the events in late 1998/early 1999, as well as the incident that was the death of talkers. Perhaps I should link to NUTS 3 code to point out the holes in the code that allowed this kind of thing to happen? Might be a bit difficult to extract though. Also I found out apparently it started in October 1996, not July 1996, so I fixed that. Seems it was about for a lot shorter than it seemed to be.

By the way, I just thought that I'd point out something here. I saw on the talker page that there was a reference to a BBC article as apparent proof of validity, yet when I investigated the article it turns out that it is a BBC-approved wikicity! I got this hint when I looked at Snowplains' page, when I was trying to decide whether Snowplains warrants a mention (IMO it doesn't - its historically irrelevant, and only has 11 users on right now so isn't popular enough to warrant notoriety). Indeed, Snowplains asserted that the article was primarily an advertisement for their service. So much for reliable sources!

As for the ew-too page, that's written by the guy who runs foothills. Granted that we can establish that he is of historical importance, but he is clearly biased in favour of ew-too talkers, and indeed their charts don't even recognise the existence of non ew-too talkers. Neil Robertson protested at that in 1998 and joined with them, but Neil Robertson is biased. He does not mention a single adult-orientated talker, and only mentions the ones that he likes. Some of the talkers he listed in his history are so far from being notable as to be a joke. I mean Crypt? Come on now. Who has heard of that? Nobody uses their code base, and nobody ever went to their talker. It just so happens that Neil liked the talker.

So the thing is that this is a very subjective account, for 2 primary reasons: 1) they historically didn't have web pages and hence most of the evidence of everything was stored within the talker itself, and 2) all of the talk about everything is done from a promotional point of view. The whole thing where a lot of people insist that talkers "only just started" in 1996 while they were statistically the most popular from 1992-1994 suggests bias. The fact that there were more talkers in the 1997-1998 period suggests to some that that was the height of their popularity, but the release of ICQ in 1996 means that in reality it wasn't.

Anyway, I have suggested for a AFD to be placed on Mamnuts. I am not sure about Amnuts however. I guess if its list where it says that over 100 talkers use the code is true, then it is notable enough for me. But Mamnuts, which only started 6 days ago and has no talkers using it, is hardly notable. Sounds like a good code base though, if you were going to start your own talker. But its basically advertising.

At least nobody could suggest that this is advertising for anything. lol. The place closed down years ago. Zordrac 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Precedent set already

The MUSH Star Wars MUSH was the subject of 2 votes for deletion [2] and [3], the first of which had no consensus, while the second resulted in a "keep". Star Wars MUSH was not one of the most popular MUSHes, but has historical importance in being the first of something, namely the first Star Wars MUSH. Therefore, by applying the same logic, this page, and indeed also the lintilla (chat site) page have just as much historical significance, and within a similar kind of community (MUSH and Talker communities are similar), and hence the precedent set in that vote means that Wikipedia already approves of this kind of article existing.

We can sit here and debate whether you personally think that this is important, and, if you personally don't think that talkers are important full stop then it is pretty unlikely that you will. The thin links to things like Yahoo! messenger, ICQ and LiveJournal are just that, thin. But it has great relevance within the talker community. Zordrac 23:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current tally

We currently have 3 in favour of keep, 2 in favour of delete, with 4 unsure. Perhaps the 4 unsure should be contacted to see what their decision is? Zordrac 15:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Wow, I have never seen such fervour to keep a page. By my reckoning we have 3 deletes, with a fourth if the article is not verified. --PhilipO 04:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

3? There's 2, as the others all made qualifications. I would suggest that its all been well and truly verified by now. And it is an important part of history, so needs to stay. This has been validated in many places. See here: Talk:Zoophilia for yet another example. Zordrac 13:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

We now have 7 in favour of keep, 3 in favour of delete, with 4 unsure. Zordrac 21:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zoo Code page?

I noticed that a wikicity called zoowiki has a page for Zoo Code already [4], but am not sure whether it is sufficiently notable to warrant a page on Wikipedia. Whilst it is popularly used within the zoophile community, it is no more common than Geek Code is within the Geek community, and the community itself is much smaller. Secondly, zoowiki already has a page on it, which seems to be sufficient. I felt that it was sufficiently notable to have its own heading within the zoophile article, however. Do you agree that this is the correct amount of notoriety for such a thing? I am also concerned about adding such things until this Vfd passes, because zoo code references planes of existence directly, and was written on planes of existence by 2 planes of existence users (wizards actually) when it was at the height of its popularity. Henceforth its notoriety is dependent on the notoriety of this article. Zordrac 15:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Update - Apparently Hobbes, the fellow that wrote Zoo Code is a user of wikipedia User: Zetawoof and he can confirm the relevance of this page. Didn't vote for some reason though. But there is debate whether it should be in the zoophilia page, so hence having a page for zoo code seems excessive. Zordrac 13:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Correction - I am not Hobbes, and never have been. --Zetawoof 23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What to do if this is deleted

I will obviously protest the decision, as I think that standard wikipedia policy was not used when deciding on the deletion process, and this is a valid encyclopaedic article that is important from a historical perspective. However, if Wikipedia decides that it should be deleted, presumably owing to the fact that it closed 2 1/2 years ago (I can't see any other valid reason why it should be deleted), then I think that the information contained should instead be added to other articles as a merge. Whether it is essential for it to have its own page is one issue - there should be no issue about it needing to be included in the encyclopaedia. Its notability is well established. Zordrac 15:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and likely Merge - Quite a bit of information has now been collected about talkers. All the individual MOO (LambdaMOO, etc) pages were recently merged into the same article, which may be appropriate in this case as well. In any case, this work shouldn't be deleted without at least merging first. ∴ here…♠ 17:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I think that that is plausible to merge it all. However, then the problem exists as to which of the talkers to keep in their own right and which to merge, and how to merge them. Also, with the MUSH pages, they decided to keep a few of them, such as Star Wars MUSH separate. Anyway, here is a list of the notable talkers (in my opinion) and why they are notable (1 line summary):

• UNaXcess - first ever talker, created in 1984. Also the basis for Nuts (Talker) code.
• Cat Chat (talker) - first ever internet talker, created in 1990. Also the eventual basis for Ew-too code.
• Cheesehouse (talker) - second ever internet talker, and first ever popular one, created in 1991. (define popularity in that it had over 10 users on at a time, and had users that did not belong to the university where it was stored).
• Foothills (talker) aka Elsewhere - Not sure if this is the 3rd ever internet talker or not, but seems to be. Was the first really popular one, getting over 100 people online at a time. Historically it is the 3rd most popular talker in history. Also formed Elsewhere code, which became ew-too code.
• Resort (talker) - first talker to use ew-too code and equal most popular talker in history (still equal 1st).
• Surfers (talker) - created immediately after public release of ew-too code, and equal most popular talker in history.
• Ncohafmuta - (possibly) the most popular Nuts (Talker) in history, and used as a partial basis for Amnuts.
• Crossroads (chat site) - officially the most popular Nuts (Talker) in history, but not recognised by Nuts creator Neil Robertson (or by Ncohafmuta's creator, who insists that Ncohafmuta was not Nuts - it was Iforms which is based on Nuts).
• Lighthouse (chat site) - first ever adult (18+) talker. Was not popular though. I don't know a lot about it so its a stub.
• Lintilla (chat site) - second ever adult talker, and historically influential on the whole adult community, as it led to Sleepy's multiple worlds, Fantasia's multiple worlds and Planes of existence (chat site), shares with Fantasia, Planes and Crystal Palace (chat site) bragging rights as the most popular adult talker in history. Also the first ever multiple worlds talker.
• Sleepy's multiple worlds - direct copy of lintilla. The fight itself greatly influenced the culture, and led to a move towards multiple worlds talkers, towards Nuts generally, and towards adult-orientated talkers (since 1996, half of the talkers are adult only). According to Alexa, is currently the 3rd most popular talker.
• Fantasia's multiple worlds - important historically, primarily with regards to it being hacked by Virus who went on to start Crystal Palace (chat site) as a 17 year old, and also is seen as the catalyst for the death of talkers, because of his actions on CP in 1998 and POE in 2000. Also holds the record for the most number of "worlds" - 30, which represented perhaps just why talkers died - because there were too many talkers and not enough people to spread between them.
• Planes of existence (chat site) (this one) - first multiple worlds talker that was not entirely adult-orientated, first to use NUTS 3 linking code, first talker of any kind to mix all ages and adult areas, first talker to mix general with human rights elements (although Crossroads (chat site) sort of did that too). Was probably the most popular zoophile talker, one of the most popular BDSM talkers, and as far as I know the only talker that had public cybersex scenes - and hence the Lust talker was the most popular of its type (and probably the most popular adult talker ever). The 2000 incident on the talker, with the spying, was the most notable, because that caused the death of talkers. A lot of other smaller incidents were also notable.
• Crystal Palace (chat site) - possibly notable in terms of its popularity - competed as the most popular BDSM talker. Probably notable as the most well-designed talker in history, with the most unique code ever. But most notable because of the spying incident in 1998, which eventually caused the death of talkers.

There are a lot of others that were more popular than some of the ones listed there, but I was only listing the first of something and most popular of something. There are ones such as Snowplains which is probably the 4th most popular talker in history, or maybe 5th or 6th, and the first big ew-too talker that was created after 1996, and the only one that broke free of the stranglehold that NUTS had on the market. Or of course we can talk about the various talkers that influenced different code bases. But in my mind those things don't warrant their own pages.

Indeed, I don't think that Amnuts or Mamnuts warrant their own pages either. They are just code bases after all, and every talker ever created had its own unique code base (well, perhaps not quite every one, but every one with a competent developer). Fantasia's, Sleepy's and lintilla all were identical, so that's perhaps one exception. But if we went around including every code base, we'd have 1000 articles, which I think is excessive. There were really only 2 main code bases used - ew-too and Nuts. That's all we need articles on.

But if someone wishes to merge some of these, then that's fine. But that's my rationale for them all. Zordrac 19:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable niche talker, quite dead now. --Zetawoof 23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough in its day. Should we remove all articles for dead people as well? (humor) Peyna 04:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Historically significant in the history of Internet Chat Falerin 14:54, 28 November 2005 (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.