Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lobsters (website)


 * 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. Lots of thoughtful discussion but consensus appears to be that this lacks the kind of sourcing which establishes notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Lobsters (website)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources are almost all primary or dependent secondary and preliminary search doesn't find evidence of strong notability. I nominate it deleted as it doesn't appear to meet the burden of WP:NORG extension of the general notability guidelines of Wikipedia. It essentially looks like another web forum. No signs of reliably published independent secondary sources of large enough circulation (outside of niche circle) in great depth. Graywalls (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This article should not be included under the Company deletion list given that it is plainly not a company. It should be judged by the WP:WEB notability guidelines. It does not fail the advertising test, but lacks secondary sources currently.However, see the point made here about secondary sources for FOSS frameworks: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability of free open source software. Given that it is an open-source framework for running webforums, in addition to a website itself, I would argue that the points made in Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability of free open source software should be considered, even though the proposal failed. I don't think that deleting this particular article would improve the quality of Wikipedia, so I would be in favor of marking the article with a Template:Primary_sources instead of deleting it. Eindiran (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * After some searching I was able to find a lot of blog and webforum mentions of Lobsters, and 2 potential secondary sources: Free Code Camp article discussing Lobsters + dev.to article discussing Lobsters. The former could be used but the latter might be self-published (I'm not sure how dev.to works) and appears to add nothing to the article anyway. I would argue, under Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability of free open source software again, that technical blogs of software engineers should be considered as having better verifiability than self-published sources in general in that the code can be run. Citing self-published material with better-than-usual verifiability has precedent: see the discussion on self-published content by experts here. For examples of technical blogs mentioning Lobsters (although there are many others I found), see here and here. Eindiran (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the website is the main hustle of a business. I don't agree that it shouldn't belong in the business, because, it is an information business, so it can be both. Is there a guideline saying otherwise? In my comparison of WP:WEBCRIT and this article, it's not a verifiability issue. It's failure to establish notability and the notability of open source software you're referencing is something else. A self published source that can be considered competent for accuracy doesn't automatically establish general notability. The lack of significant coverage in general audience ("main stream") is an indication of lack of general notability. There are things of notable within a special circle, but that's not general notability. So that's my reasoning why I nominated it. Graywalls (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is that there is no company called Lobsters. It is an open source project run by volunteers. It is an organization in a loose sense, but definitely not a company. I don't understand your point about "the notability of open source software [that I'm] referencing [being] something else": Lobsters is, in addition to being a website, an open source project used by a dozen other sites, with 2.4K stars on Github. This is the relevant repo. Regarding your point about notability: my understanding of the notability requirements is that an article does not need to meet the general notability guidelines if it meets the guidelines of a relevant category; eg a website can be presumed notable if it meets the requirements of either Notability_(software) or the general notability guidelines. This article clearly does not meet the general notability guidelines nor the web guidelines but I think it meets the software guidelines, which is a relevant category for the reason I mentioned above. Please note the discussion in the software guidelines about the way a piece of software is distributed and the loosening of the sourcing guidelines for free and open source software. Eindiran (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Well, since this article is about the website, I maintain that it should be deleted.We're on the same page that it doesn't meet notability as GNG or WEB. Graywalls (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then the focus of the article can just be changed to the open source project instead of the website and add a primary sources hatnote. Initramfs (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * At that point, IMHO that'd gaming the system to do anything to get non-notable article to persist. Graywalls (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , after I had another look, I realized Notability_(software) is only an essay rather than "software guidelines" as you said. From what I understand, if there's differing standards between essays and guidelines, the standards in guidelines trump them. Since this has a greater implication beyond this particular AfD, I will look into this further. Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_19 Graywalls (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I totally missed that. The essay is structured quite similarly to the actual notability guidelines pages, so I somehow overlooked that it isn't also a guidelines page. At this point, it seems like there is a growing consensus that the article should be deleted and while I would be happy to see the article continue to exist, it seems like that isn't how this is going to pan out so I won't push the issue any further. If you find out anything interesting regarding the difference between policies and guidelines wrt an AfD, I'd love to hear more. Eindiran (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that verifiability is a requisite for any content within any article on Wikipedia as in it's against policy to insert anything not verifiable. For an article to merit being on Wikipedia, it is expected that they meet the general notability guidelines. This means that verifiability doesn't imply notability. You could gather up sources to say that build 235 of 1000 limited edition luxury roadster crashed into a pond and the driver died of blunt force trauma according to medical examiners. Two local newspaper identifying the crash location and ME's expert opinion would produce reliable verification of what was said, but this is not something to create an article about. I suspect there's a misconception that verifiability by experts merits article creation. Graywalls (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I changed the article focus from the website to the open source software project, so it meets the requirements for that. Initramfs (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * comment Well, I wasn't certain if lesser notability burden is an acceptable practice on software articles, so I asked the notability project. Wikipedia_talk:Notability and the two feedbacks I have received suggests applying the WP:NORG standards. If there's compelling alternative consensus that has been reached that is actually applicable, please link. Graywalls (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think this article needs to be added to organizations and companies discussions, because the article is not about an organization anymore and has never been about a company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Initramfs (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – The Github page does not mention Lobsters being a software project, it just says that it's the website's source code. While some comments about the website can be found on HackerNews for example, I could not find any comments about it as a software project. "Lobste.rs" does not mention that it is based on a software project. So while the website doesn't have any mentions in reliable secondary sources (and fails WP:WEB), the software doesn't have any mentions at all (and would fail the proposed RFC linked above). – Thjarkur (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Some history from my perspective as site owner: the site is sort of incidentally a software project. The article is correct that the site started because the creator was hellbanned from another forum in an especially frustrating, non-transparent way. So our transparency policy states "The source code to this site and its provisioning and deployment are made available under a 3-clause BSD license for viewing, auditing, forking, or contributing to." to prevent that sort of experience from happening again, and in the early documentation it's explicit the codebase is public so people can read it and understand the site, not to support other people running their own sites. I've softened that language to encourage contributors, but I still don't add features for the benefit of outside sites. I don't think the codebase meets the notability standards that Graywalls linked a few minutes ago, even the essay that wasn't accepted. pushcx (talk) 06:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Question There is a lot of discussion above, but as far as I can tell we have not yet found examples of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, have we? Just forum posts and first party sites? Assuming that is a case, my !vote would be to delete.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * that's my appraisal of the situation. The article creator acknowledged it wouldn't pass the general notability guideline or the website notability. They changed the title from "Lobster (website)" to "Lobsters (software)" after the AfD was launch and turn the article to software oriented just to try to get the notability evaluated for software criteria. Graywalls (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, site owner, maybe I can help clear up confusion. (Please remove if it's not OK for me to contribute like this, I'm not super familiar with the AfD process but from reading WP:COI I think meta talk is OK?) Lobsters is not a business or organization, there is no legal entity, we don't charge users/sites for anything, and we've resisted donations. I'm not aware of any coverage in any kind of news sources or books; we've never been contacted by journalists. There's a couple more blog posts like the two linked above, but I don't have links handy. Regarding FOSS notability, we don't have many contributors. You can see all the sister sites on our wiki, but I believe Lobste.rs is much bigger than any of them however you care to measure. Happy to answer any questions if it helps your process reach a correct decision.pushcx (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey pushcx, thanks for participating. It can be a little complicated, but essentially Wikipedia's standards for having an article hinge off how we determine notability. It's not about how legitimate a thing is (I have no doubt that everything you've said is real and true) or how big it is, but about what can be cited to reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage. You can read more about that at WP:GNG, but that will often be stuff like news articles, books (written by people independent of the site) -- sources you might feel comfortable citing in an academic context. Primary sources, like the site itself, can be cited for information but don't help with showing notability. If you think some industry press might cover the site, that could go a long way, but remember that Wikipedia isn't designed for the purpose of getting something more publicity.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was trying to avoid coming out too strong there because I'm not an experienced editor and obviously I'm involved with the page subject, but you seem to assume I'm in favor of keeping the page, so: my best understanding of the notability rules is that the site/codebase don't meet them and nothing I have to offer supports keeping the page. I'm not going to get upset if you remove the page or feature it on the homepage, just figure I'd chip in what I know and offer any info that might help you run your process well because I'm a big fan of Wikipedia. pushcx (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: My evaluation is that this discussion is still ongoing at this time. Multiple users (User:Thjarkur, User:Yaksar) have participated without placing a bolded !vote, and otherwise the debate seems to be still ongoing. Closing admin: Note that the page has been moved to Lobsters (software) during the discussion, and the close may need special handling.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC) ,, could you input your vote, if you have taken a position? Graywalls (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete – No mentions in reliable secondary sources. On the off-chance that there isn't a consensus for deletion, the article should be moved back to its original title as the GitHub project is even less notable. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violates WP:PSTS, as the article doesn't contain a single non-primary source. I'm unable to find any significant coverage of the site or the software project in independent reliable sources. The purpose of Wikipedia is to document topics that are already notable, and not to generate publicity for topics that don't yet meet our notability guidelines. The applicable guideline for Lobste.rs is either the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for web content (which refers to WP:GNG in WP:WEBCRIT when the website lacks a significant award). Notability (software) is an essay that has not been widely vetted by the community and has no bearing on this discussion. —  Newslinger  talk   07:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Even though there are keep !vote on the ground of "want to keep" as well as comments without a !vote but there is a relatively robust consensus that this article subject fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines or the organizations notability guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2019 (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.