Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuleap (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Tuleap}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Tuleap}})

I note the two prior AfDs. I also note the banner at the head containing multiple flags for improvements not addressed since September 2018. I suggest that they have not been addressed because they cannot be addressed. Fails WP:GNG, is improperly sourced, and is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Computing, Software, and France. C F A 💬 00:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

:@Timtrent What do you have to say for Stephen Schulz's argument towards keeping? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

::Nothing whatsoever. If you wish to make that argument in this discussion please make it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

:::Keep then. It has been brought up before that many sources such as Infoworld, LinuxFR, Silicon, a lot of stuff from Opensource.com, etc confer notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I removed the links to Tuleap's own web site and slide decks. There is the one [https://opensource.com/article/17/1/interview-Tuleap-project long article] in opensource.com which is, however, an interview with one of the founders. [https://www.lemagit.fr/etude/Comment-la-DSI-de-lUniversite-Grenoble-Alpes-est-devenue-agile This] article has a decently long section on the software. And it has been listed as a "top X" software package. I think we need at least one more substantial article to make this a solid "keep". And ideally it shouldn't be from opensource.com because we already have that as a source many times. Lamona (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as I believe this reads too much like an advertisement WP:PROMO. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• :That can be fixed. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.