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. Sandstein 11:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuleap[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not indicate notability. Internet search shows little coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article makes an impression of public advertisement of product with no proper indication of notability. Web search didn't yield anything to change this impression (including the 2011 award by some obscure site). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliably sourced references. Created by an SPA as possible promotional article. Dialectric (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I found these sources about Tuleap that seem reliable to me: From a famous French online newspaper : http://www.journaldunet.com/solutions/dsi/les-outils-de-gestion-de-projet-open-source/tuleap.shtml This is an article about open source tools for project management. Tuleap is compared to other tools: Redmine, Mantis and Jira. From the Open World Forum, an fair about free softwares in France:http://openworldforum.org/eng/News/The-2011-OWF-Innovation-Awards-The-finalists There's a website seems to be about the Community : https://tuleap.net/ Not so famous this tool but an interesting one, I tried it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.2.10.49 (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About those references:

"Source : JDN Solutions" discards this source for me.
And so what? Each piece of business software has at least one such award. This doesn't help unless there is a reason making notable all the software receiving this award (this essay is about companies, but the argument still stands).
Primary source to establish notability? Seriously?

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to see that my first article is seen as an advertisement. My aim was just to do a short post about a new free tool I came upon on the web. When I wrote it I tried to be the most objective as possible and look at other articles in the same category as Jira or FusionForge for instance. What can I do to improve it? Thanks. Enoushka —Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

By the way, there is a testimony in French from a user in STMicrolectronics, should it help to assess the usage of Tuleap http://www.journaldunet.com/developpeur/temoignage/temoignage/406022/l-alm-tuleap/ --Enoushka (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Software to manage software development projects. Well, that's good readable English, as opposed to "application lifecycle management". But there's still no indication that this software has had significant effects outside the programmer pool, or even in it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I removed "application lifecycle management" and add 2 references at the end of the article. --Enoushka (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2012 (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.