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)[reply]

Natter Social Network[edit]

Natter Social Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

  • 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 Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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.