Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natter Social Network (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Natter Social Network
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was deleted at AFD1 but is now being relisted following a discussion at DRV that closed as relisted with the agreement of closing admin. Since I am listing this as DRV closer in an administrative capacity I am taking no position on this content. Spartaz Humbug! 17:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Natter misses the mark for notability. 2 of the 3 references are unreliable (Career addict is an unreviewed blog platform and techspark is a volunteer joornalism site) the only reliable secondary source is a BBC story. I am going to propose that when WP:GNG calls for significant coverage it doesn't mean a single story. Per WP:ALTERNATIVE I would recommend listing this in a directory wiki such as wikicompany.org not an encyclopedia. Per WP:ONEDAY, Wikipedia isn't made for things that are just cooked up. If natter takes off and becomes a notable thing then we can write an article on it, but it is missing the mark for notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * More than three sources were provided at Articles for deletion/Natter Social Network and Deletion review/Log/2015 April 10. Have you reviewed them? Cunard (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  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."  According to http://techspark.co/team/WebCite, Tech Spark has editorial oversight.   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-usWebCite, PCR has editorial oversight.  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."   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." <li> There is editorial oversight according to http://www.pocket-lint.com/info/who-are-weWebCite </li> <li> 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)."</li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Natter to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * There are 2011 articles from the newspaper Bath Chronicle, the news website Pocket-lint, the newspaper Western Mail, the news agency South West News Service, and the news website TechCrunch. 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 Notability.  Cunard (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging Deletion review/Log/2015 April 10 participants, , , , , and . Thank you, , for your kind words at the DRV and graciously agreeing to a relist. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all, : in a nutshell, you were right and I was wrong. I'm sorry it took me a couple of days to see it. Maybe I'm losing my touch--don't lose yours. :) Drmies (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:03, 29 April 2015 (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.