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. Two things. If this is a notable social media network, it needs, by definition, some serious widespread sourcing to be notable; failing multiple articles in mainstream sources that report on online media, it's not notable. Second, one would expect such coverage to be sufficiently in-depth. Cunard has done (as usual) a remarkable job in finding coverage, but they appear to be lacking in both breadth and depth. In other words, as is suggested by at least two editors, it may be too soon for this outfit. Drmies ( talk) 02:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Natter Social Network (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A social network dumbing things down even worse than Twitter. Is it notable? — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 15:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• So you flagged this for deletion because you don't like the website that the page refers to? Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimMcNulty ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete I see enough references to write a story in Wikinews about doesn't meet GNG for an article in wikipedia. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 09:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree with RHaworth, and groaned inwardly as I saw this article. On a more serious note though, I barely see evidence the social network exists [1] let alone its notability. Sources used in the article...Buzzfeed...and an article on a .biz domain titled "How I broke new social media site Natter in 120 seconds"... Natter may someday be a great site (I certainly hope not) but it is far WP:TOOSOON to merit an article. ―  Padenton| ✉   05:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• I agree that the Buzzfeed article is not a good source. But the article on the .biz domain is from the magazine PCR, which is published by NewBay Media and has editorial oversight. Cunard ( talk) 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete One source: [2] (looks like the same one Padenton spoke of). That "natter" actually means something in normal English (= small talks) adds a lot of unrelated results and I might miss some from that, but it could be a good case of WP:TOOSOON. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 12:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete It may be a social network, but not a notable one. Joseph2302 ( talk) 01:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Improve or Delete (weak) It has some coverage, my issue is not with notability but with WP:UGLY. RobBertholf ( talk) 16:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• That your issue is not with notability but with WP:UGLY conflicts with Wikipedia:There is no deadline, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Cunard ( talk) 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Russell, Kate (2014-12-04). "Webscape: Alternative social media sites special". Click. BBC. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.

     Kate Russell of BBC notes:

     I am constantly being sent press releases about websites that claim to be the next big thing about social media but Natter wants to be the next small thing, serving up a Twitter-like platform with a limit of just three words. It's fun coming up with creative ways to express yourself with such a tight deadline or reading other people's posts. I can't see this becoming a platform people have actual conversations on them.

  2. Jordan, Chris (2014-10-07). "Startup Profile: Natter – the three-word social media platform". Tech Spark. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.

     According to http://techspark.co/team/ ^WebCite, Tech Spark has editorial oversight.

  3. Barnes, Laura (2015-03-02). "How I broke new social media site Natter in 120 seconds". PCR. NewBay Media. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.

     The article notes:

     PCR deputy editor Laura Barnes shares her views on the new social media website that's just secured a six-figure investment.

     ...

     Described by its developers as a nano social networking platform, ‘Natter.com was conceptualised as a three word networking service to allow friends to connect through short and snappy messages offering a new social experience’.

     ...

     “Natters tend to fall into one of three types: deeply considered and thought provoking three word statements, often with a sense of mystery, a simple check in such as ‘in the pub’ or those looking for the challenge and fun that comes with sharing their views in just three words,” comments founder Neil Stanley.

     According to http://www.pcr-online.biz/info/contact-us ^WebCite, PCR has editorial oversight.
  4. "Natter.com Receives Six-Figure Investment". Business Matters. 2015-03-02. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.

     The article notes:

     Natter.com, the three word social network, has today received its first investment in the company as business ‘Angels’ have invested an undisclosed six-figure sum to help the tech startup continue to grow.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Natter to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Cunard: First, I would appreciate it if you would remove all the webcitation links from your comments, as it makes it difficult for anyone to look at archiveurls are rarely used in deletion discussions, and the websites often strip away any stylesheets/images making the content very difficult to read.

1. I'll come back to this
2. I'm going to need to see more info before we declare TechSpark as having "Editorial Oversight" Maybe ask for comment at WP:RSN? This article also doesn't seem to have much encyclopedic information.
3. Citing the developers as a source. It's not reliable thorough coverage independent of the subject, which is what GNG requires.
4. I'll come back to this ―  Padenton| ✉   04:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• To view the original URLs, click on "the original" from "Archived from the original". The WebCitation links are necessary in case the article is nominated for deletion again in the future and the sources become dead links.

  Here are several more articles about the company:

  1. "Trio launch website to fill social network gap". Bath Chronicle. 2011-01-27. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04.
  2. "Consultancy now provides training". Bath Chronicle. 2011-08-18. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04.

     The article notes:

     A social networking website launched by a Bath company in January has introduced new features as it seeks to attract more users.

     Natter.com is one of two social networking sites run from The Tramshed off Walcot Street. Natter is run by former banker Neil Stanley, while Whisbird is run by the team that is also behind the Xcetra brand agency.

     Natter's aim is for people to make new friends around the globe by allowing them to converse via a webcam in a safe way. The only tools they need are an internet connection, a webcam and a genuine Facebook account.

     Visitors to natter.com are asked to select the sort of person they are interested in meeting. Having found a Natter user, the two people can then talk, initially for just one minute. Once the minute's up, the users then decide whether they want to continue their chat, and can decide whether to add their new friend on Facebook.

     At the end of every successful one-minute chat, both users receive a 'Natter point'. Collecting as many of these as possible benefits the Natter user in the future by indicating they are polite and friendly.

  3. Lamkin, Paul (2011-01-18). "Natter your way to new Facebook friends". Pocket-lint. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04.

     There is editorial oversight according to http://www.pocket-lint.com/info/who-are-we ^WebCite

  4. Smith, Mark (2011-05-05). "Fancy a natter with the new network boys?". Western Mail. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04.

     The article notes:

     TWO entrepreneurs are following in the footsteps of Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg after launching their own social networking site.

     Phillip Harris, 25, and housemate Tom Fide, 25, are hoping their latest creation, Natter, will be the next big online phenomenon – giving people from Rhondda Cynon Taff a safe and exciting new place to find new friends.

     Natter, which encourages “friendly and polite” webcam chatting, has been described by Mr Harris as “a form of online speed-dating” – a market untouched by the larger internet corporations.

     It has the backing of CEO and co-founder, Neil Stanley (ex-Goldman Sachs and Lombard Odier).

  5. "Natter completes funding round". Newsco Insider Limited. South West News Service. 2011-04-07. Retrieved 2015-04-04. {{ cite news}}: Check |archiveurl= value ( help)
  They are 2011 articles from the newspaper Bath Chronicle, the news website Pocket-lint, the newspaper Western Mail, and the news agency South West News Service.

  The second Bath Chronicle article and the Western Mail article in particular provide substantial coverage about the company. Both the 2011 and 2014 articles mention company cofounder Neil Stanley so I am certain that this is the same company. The company remains a social media network though their product has changed from webcam chatting to a Twitter-like platform with three-word posts.

  Based on the sources here, it is clear that Natter the company passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard ( talk) 10:05, 4 April 2015 (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.