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[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)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 21:41, 27 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]

@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]
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.
Category