Deletion of Lobsters (website)

Comment: Violates , 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  in CRIT when the website lacks a significant award). Wikipedia:Notability (software) is an essay that has not been widely vetted by the community and has no bearing on this discussion. —&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PSTS||WP:PRIMARY||WP:SIGCOV||WP:IS||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:GNG||WP:WEB||WP:GNG||WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: This article should not be included under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies|Company deletion list given that it is plainly not a company. It should be judged by the  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

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 ), the software doesn't have any mentions at all (and would fail the proposed RFC linked above
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG)