Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuleap (project management)

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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tuleap (project management)

)

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

Editor who created and has been editing the article objected to the {{notability}}. Rather than go to PROD for this non-notable product, expecting it to be contested as well, I have elected to go AfD. The coverage provided is primarily self-published. The other coverage is either routine or not sufficiently in-depth. I cannot find any other RSes that support notability. Do we need different criteria for open source software? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before already. Please check deletion nomination history (reviewed by @SwisterTwister: a month ago). From the perspective of someone who has been researching this subject for sometime, the entry on Tuleap is necessary. The claim that it lacks notability in its citations is simply baseless. Is opensource.com (by Red Hat), for instance, "non-notable"? Try checking out and installing and ACTUALLY running open-source project management systems. Frivoluous, overzelous moves to delete articles is what's making wikipedia such a hostile place for knowledge.Psy~enwiki (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it hasn't gone to a speedy, PROD or AfD before. I suspect that was a page review. That does not take into account notability or anything else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft & userfy at best for now as the article is still questionably solid for the applicable notability. Also, it was exactly me who reviewed it last month. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the same standard of "notability" is applied consistently, many entries indexed here will have to be deleted as well. I've run or used many of these apps, as opposed to just googled about them. Psy~enwiki (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to nominate those other articles after reading
  WP:OSE. If you would rather make a list somewhere, I will gladly nominate the ones that don't meet notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Precisely the point that the Tuleap piece should be notable enough, as argued here. Psy~enwiki (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:N states what notability is, not the essay. All of the references are either paid-for or primary. Find non-primary sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - This is already non-primary source. And this. Psy~enwiki (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. We have two sources that support the award, but still fails WP:N. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        For those working in the field, it does in fact meet "significant coverage." Number is not the only criterion of knowledge. Psy~enwiki (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I work in the field and so your blanket statement is clearly not correct. If you want to change the way we determine notability, do that in a different forum. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Project management of software development? Even if we look at the all the criteria posted on
        WP:N, quality and authority trump quantity. It's far from being blanket statement. I suppose the "we" there is a royal "we." Psy~enwiki (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Software development. Not a royal we, a collective we. See
        WP:CONSENSUS and a dozen other pages on the project that discuss how decisions are not done in isolation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        ... in which case, I suppose we're having discussion. We'll see how others are going to weigh in. Software development? What's your project management platform then? Psy~enwiki (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I already wrote that we will have to "do that in a different forum". I suggest on the talk page of
        WP:N or a page related to this subject that discusses notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        My view is that even on notability grounds cited, the entry is worth having. I am not in any way associated with Tuleap. I'm trying to take stock of open-source project management platforms through wikipedia. I started 2 entries so far on the subject. I'm currently evaluating another project management platform but still unsure if it's worth adding a wikipedia entry for. The Tuleap piece is barely 2-month old, and I follow through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psy~enwiki (talk • contribs) 10:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. clearly insufficient reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here two additional non primary reputable sources FLOSS Weekly. And open-source-guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matemaz (talk • contribs) 08:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC) — Matemaz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What's frustrating here is the use of expressions like "clearly insufficient" without specifying what constitutes "sufficient." What's on
WP:N is hardly helpful in determining what would come with the adverb "clearly." There's also an unfair charge of the citations being "primarily self-published," when I don't have anything to do with those secondary sources. I'm a researcher; I go for primary sources, which apparently are frowned upon here. At any rate, I added the 2 more secondary sources cited above. Still, I maintain it's not a simple matter of numbers. This piece is specialized knowledge on project management platforms, and I happen to know about this area. Psy~enwiki (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

since you asked , for the two just added, opensourceguide's short notice was obviously written by the company, so it's PR. The FLOSS interview is from a source that says its subjects may asked to be interviewed,so I doubt it's independent, but more an opportunity for PR. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're shifting our discussion to PR. There's a negative sense to "PR." Otherwise, it's not bad in itself, taken broadly. How else do open source projects get the word out? Again, I'm not in any way related to Tuleap. I'm researching this area. I have another entry on another platform that's competing with Tuleap. Psy~enwiki (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews on FLOSS Weekly are anything but PR; most guests get a thorough going-over from the hosts, who as far as I know are not compensated by either the station or the guest. There is a way to ask to be considered for being interviewed but it's reviewed by the show host and a matter for his discretion alone. This is not a PR channel and is a long-standing and reliable secondary source. ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes indeed, I'm using that as a criterion for judging the references, because no amount of PR for a product proves notability no matter where published. The definition of PR is that it isn't independent but written by or for the company or at its direction or instigation. DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a distinction has to be made between the open source project and a company that supports it. RedHat earns tons of money supporting what's otherwise a freely available software. I'm not too worried about some small companies making "PR" that can be verified. But think about all the "studies" funded by the oil industry. At any rate, the 2 other secondary sources cited earlier in the article itself are far from being press releases. Psy~enwiki (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, please. Tuleap is
Ring's (another unrelated free software project) project support platform. We use it because it suits our needs and is free software. It's also been referred to by several independant articles over the years: PolarSys (an open-source engineering consortium that uses and contributes to Tuleap), opensource.com included it in their 2015 top project management tools, as well as articles on le Journal du net (a popular French IT magazine), this vietnamese article, projectmanagerlife.com, Butler Analytics and we linked to it in this article about Ring on the Free Software Foundation's site. What amount of notability does it require?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerolnx (talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — Jerolnx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Keep and improve. This is a popular open source project, but its origins in France mean secondary sources in English are hard to identify. Deleting it will only make that harder... ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Popular? Please provide a reliable source for its level of popularity. The sources in English are not the issue. None have been provided in any language. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You can find other sources: Your Agile project at Eclipse with Tuleap, Adopting Agile Methods and Open Source Tools in a Large Enterprise, Ericsson Tuleap, Top 5 open source project management tools in 2015, Ericsson is clearly independent from Tuleap, you can see the involvement in 2013 and 2016, EclipseCon is also independant of Tuleap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.127.205.87 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - All self-promotional and in no way meeting WP:RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we're referring to this RS, I don't see why most of the 3rd-party sources cited above and below would count as unreliable. Nor are they self-promotional. By "self" do we mean Tuleap or its corporate matron? Certainly not. Even if we stay with just the letter (as opposed to the spirit) of the rules, it's hard to understand how anyone could be so dismissive of the mounting evidence made available even beyond what's been cited in the Tuleap piece itself. Psy~enwiki (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - How a 3rd party committee that select a talk for a well known conference is self-promotional? Tuleap is not sponsor of the conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.62.230 (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — 212.84.62.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      - Third-party committees can only select talks if the company applies to make one. No indication of how many people attended this talk. Was the talk itself covered in publication? Most "talks" are not themselves notable. Sorry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional non primary sources here. Please note that Tuleap is 100% libre software on a GPLV2 licence used by a large community

AFUL framasoft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matemaz (talk • contribs) 14:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Silicon toolinux improve technologies camayihi riduidel opensource-it toolinux infoworld Matemaz (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Above I posted that the piece at issue qualifies even on literal grounds: following reliability and notability. Even more so, in spirit of the rules, in relation to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, which states "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions" (Pillar 5). Pillar 1 states Wikipedia combines "features of general and specialized encyclopedias." The idea of an encyclopedia-style survey of project management platforms necessitates inclusion of Tuleap and other allegedly lesser known platforms in the category.Psy~enwiki (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The deletionists have just dug in, refusing to see "clearly" the mounting evidence for notability and reliability of third-party sources coming from academic and media sources. There's also that utter disregard of Pillars of Wikipedia, of what Wikipedia is all about. Psy~enwiki (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. You already made a !VOTE above. (see 14:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)) You can't decide to Keep twice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes" your action tampering with someone else's statement does not help us. Please don't. ClareTheSharer (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. Please don't tell me how to participated in AfDs. I've been doing it for a long time and have seen editors blocked for egregious versions of what Psy~enwiki unintentionally did and my actions were an effort to fix the problem not to rile any editors. The editor's actions were incorrect I corrected them. If you like to take me to ANI, I will gladly defend my actions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this independent article you can see that tuleap has been chosen by Airbus as the Agile project management solution Matemaz (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In that article it discusses Airbus but only a single bullet-point for Tuleap along with Jenkins, git, Gerrit, Sonar, PHPUnit, Apache JMeter (which they spelled incorrectly), SeleniumHQ, Eclipse, RedHat Enterprise Linux, PHP, Apache and MariaDB. It's not significant coverage of the tool. The resources need to discuss the tool, not just mention them. That's also the issue with all of the other links you have provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please take a look at the article by Framasoft it is a reputable source and is not only a bulletpoint but a discussion of Tuleap. Most other articles are not bullet-points either. Furthermore the fact that Airbus (amongst many others) chose to use Tuleap makes it notable doesn't it? Matemaz (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC) I mean, Tuleap is an enterprise quality 100% libre software out there that is being used by the likes of Airbus and several other enterprises, teams and associations, that is equivalent or better than proprietary solutions, the mere fact that it exists is already notable. Matemaz (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not a reliable source. Feel free to take it to
      WP:RSN if you doubt. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Keep I was looking for information about this product which is used in my project and I referred - as usual - to wikipedia for a fast overview. And I'm glad the article exists. I don't really understand why some soul around here believes it should be deleted. It's clearly useful since I looked it up. Competition? Alain Pannetier (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While that's a good reason to look for an article, it's not a good reason to keep the article.
  WP:N is. Are there any sources to support the product's notability? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - The way I see it for now is that there are tens of people working on the product, thousands of people using it and one guy - just one - waving Wikipedia acronyms and apparently decided to label all sources he is presented with as unreliable. Is there a wikipedia acronym for this kind of 'nothing-else-to-do' behaviour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alain Pannetier (talk • contribs) 08:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Use is not currently a Wikipedia notability guideline. There is plenty you can do though: change the notability guidelines for open source projects. Until then, don't add non-notable subjects. That I'm the only editor commenting here means that there is a network discussing this elsewhere and coming to "save" this article. Other editors who know the notability criteria will comment as the AfD continues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Usual shield/fallacy: "I don't make the rule, I enforce them. I'm OK if you change the rules". No you don't: you *claim* you do. Even more questionably, you attempt to instil the idea that for this article to be acceptable the rules have to be changed. This is clearly unsubstantiated, see below. Regarding the claim "I am many, a whole lot of people are behind me". So much behind that we see only you. As to "'saving' this article" through its sheer deletion - I don't now why - this conjures up the image of Torquemada saving the soul of sinners at the cost of tying their earthly body to the pyre. Now on notability. Ever heard of stackoverflow? Is this notable enough? Well try this then: search for 'tuleap' on stackoverflow. This yields around 150 results (just for stackoverflow, there are probably many more in the whole stackexchange family of forums). So people in the wider IT community *do* ask and *do* answer questions about it. That's a grass root figure. Not a source you can label as biased. Just because you haven't *heard* about Tuleap does not mean it's unused.Alain Pannetier (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        So you can read minds. That's very interesting. What am I thinking now? In short, the problem is not me or my understanding of what qualifies as notable. Your appealing to
        WP:IGNORE all rules. I never claimed that I am many. I simply said more editors would be along as the AfD continues. Instead of tilting at windmills, I suggest you find some significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        "I suggest you find some significant coverage in reliable sources'. Sources that you would immediately discard as unreliable as you've already done with all the perfectly valid ones that were already cited here. Sorry, but I've got nothing to prove here. You have to. Actually your determination to disregard all already presented sources leads to question your real motivation here. By your own admission you "work in the field". Are you working or have you already worked for a organisation in competition with the product? Also, by the virtue of the rules you refer to ad nauseam, this Afd would last seven days, be arbitrated by some uninvolved authorities, taking into consideration that there are other articles in other languages, etc. So, my turn to make suggestions. Let's finish this masquerade and remove this AfD banner - added 15 days ago. I've got work to do - which incidentally involves using the product.Alain Pannetier (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It's late for me so please excuse me if my responses are short and rude. If you took the time to read what qualifies as a
        WP:COI, I have nothing to hide: I don't work for an organization that works to compete with this product nor have I ever worked for such a company. I work in the field of software development. I'm sorry if my earlier terse response left any confusion. PRODs last seven days. AfDs have no fixed timelimit. You're electing to me here. If you don't want to provide the required sources, the AfD can end whenever an admin wants to end it and delete the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Comment - As I'm certain the delete voters will confirm, I still confirm my suggestions for deletion because my own searches found nothing better at all and the current article has nothing solidly convincingly better yet thus where I suggested drafting and userfying if needed. SwisterTwister talk 08:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This could be a function of skill or search engine limitation, as many of the 3rd party sources have already been cited in this discussion page and in the piece itself. Psy~enwiki (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble understanding why framasoft is not a reputable source. It is recognised in France and is definitely independent and widely recognised as a quality information source. So are many of the other articles provided here not directly linked to the product nor provided by PR but written on objective independent media therefore qualifying as non primary reputable sources. Please acknowledge the existence and neutrality of these sources and accept that Tuleap qualifies as a valid entry in wikipedia. Thank you. 212.84.61.190 (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a "réseau de projets maintenu par une communauté et soutenu par une association" or in English, a "project network maintained by a community and supported by an association". In other words, it's an open wiki that anyone can edit. Not even Wikipedia is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New Source here an additional source in German by Hochschule Baden-Württemberg Stuttgart in depth university research Matemaz (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be a reliable source. I'm not familiar with how academic guidelines work, but it seems like a catalogue rather than a research paper on a single subject. Which element of RS do you think it meets? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This publication is an academic independent evaluation and comparison of OS tools to support lightweight software development. It clearly answers fully all the requirements for an RS. This establishes Tuleap as a notable product thereby this should end the AfD with an objective keep decision. Thanks for the discussion. Matemaz (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already linked above. How does this document fully answer all the requirements for a RS? I don't see it. It's simply a resource, it's not a critical review of the product. By the definition you offer, every tool mentioned in it should be considered for inclusion, and that's unlikely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is not a critical review? it goes all the way and even establishes an objective VOTE on each of the products reviewed. The vote the research attributes to Tuleap is not a random number! It is clearly a critical vote after review!Matemaz (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ. It satisfies all criteria in
  WP:CORP to discriminate between confidential and ubiquitous but, we've already established that tupleap has (in your own words) "some degree of popularity". Alain Pannetier (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - I'm glad you beg to differ. I think it's not, and I read German. We have reached an impasse. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wissen Sie was Herr Görlitz? I auch, kann Deutsch lesen! Hmmm Zu Schlim!!!! Deutsch habe ich am erstens wenn ich nur fünf war gelernt – In Dortmund. Dann bin auch in Gymnasium in Ibbenbüren gewesen. Und dann noch, habe ich mein Militärdienst in Villingen verbracht... Also für mich, ist es leicht sehen, dass diese Untersuchung eine Wunderbare Referenz für Tuleap ist. Zum Beispiel. Was bedeutet "bestbewertesten"? Hum? "TOP RATED!!!". So the first section in the "Short profile of the TOP RATED tools is for Tuleap"… And there are only two top-rated (so much for your argument of " By the definition you offer, every tool mentioned in it should be considered for inclusion, and that's unlikely"). Noch einmal ist Ihre Bösgläubigkeit ganz klar. As for your "And no we have not reached an impasse", here it goes. As long as there is no consensus, there is no deletion. And remember "debates should not be relisted more than twice" (
      WP:RELIST). Grüß Gott. Alain Pannetier (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    - For non Germanophones, I actually happen to read and speak German for both family and professional reasons. So I *could* read the part of the study (40 pages) dealing with Tuleap. Tuleap is one of the two top rated tools in the study by the researcher. So basically there is no reason to question the validity of this source. Alain Pannetier (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - A catalogue of software. While they call it a top-rated product, it's just a chance to push open source software so that commercial ventures (and governments) can save money. The three-page section that discusses Tuleap still doesn't cut it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After all the discussion my view is still Keep -- plenty of sources of varying quality around that point to notability (especially the FLOSS Weekly appearance & the Stuttgart report), just needs a motivated curator to fix it up. ClareTheSharer (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's still a Keep. Industry viewpoint: Tuleap is one of the few free, open source, dynamic, integrated platforms supporting complete ALM. This has been recognised by powerful software houses which have integrated it to their delivery model (Airbus, Atos, Ericsson, Orange, Renault, to name a few). It is comparable to well established Redmine and its forks, but in my opinion more enterprise oriented (Kanban support etc...). Momentum is there and so is market acceptance. Whether some Wikipedia self appointed trigger-happy AfD nominator can let themselves be persuaded that there are some "notable", "reliable" sources discussing its merrits initially seemed to me - as an everyday user - byzantine but since there are some criteria, let's deal with criteria. Quoting from Wikipedia:Notability (software): "Before nominating an unsourced article for deletion, be sure to verify that it is non-notable, not just missing citations. One way to do this is to perform a Google books, Google news, or Google scholar search for the app in question if relevant. Simply stating "non notable" and "unreferenced" is not a valid criteria for deletion. Also keep in mind that the number of Google hits itself do not impart notability, it is the quality of each source (or breadth of a search) that influences such numbers." So I ran some queries on the Google News, scholar and groups and all these queries netted results (awards, papers, reviews, support requests in various languages). I also know from personal experience that a nice place to get support is stackoverflow. Also from the same source: "It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown." So I don't think the current conspicuously restrictive interpretation of the notability criteria is justified. Alain Pannetier (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is that by reason of use, which is not supported, and which is not an established criteria of notability, it should be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. My argument is that you did not follow the rules when you first nominated the article for deletion - hence the strong opposition. So the nomination shouldn't be here in the first place! Alain Pannetier (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.
WP:GNG is clearly not met. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- This is a rhetorical use of the word "clearly." Please look closely at the evidence presented above and below. Psy~enwiki (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New Source by the International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR) This is an independent paper dedicated to Tuleap. Any objective non partisan person will agree that this unambiguously and clearly fulfils all requirements for an RS. Matemaz (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't believe the accounts marked as sock-puppets by MrX qualify as such and suggest the epithet be removed from each (no argument about the IP being so marked). However, those accounts are certainly linked to the core developers of Tuleap and the editors involved may wish to declare an interest. I also suggest that the experienced editors here take care not to bite these newcomers, who appear bemused why their well-known project is being "attacked". ClareTheSharer (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been marked as "sock puppets". They have been marked as
single-purpose accounts, which is vastly different. - Mr X 22:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
From
WP:DCOI which is think is more appropriate as the two accounts in question appear to be the authors of Tuleap and not a flurry of sock puppets. Thanks for responding! ClareTheSharer (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
There is a reason for using the templates. ClareTheSharer, you were wrong about me marking the duplicate keep comment. You're wrong about this as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe it's wrong to treat them as good-faith but COI instead of as bad-faith SPA? Or should I just take your word for it because you are so experienced? I suppose I should be grateful that at least this time you didn't tell me "FU" and just lectured me :-) ClareTheSharer (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wow, this is scary! People being marked without their knowledge. How can I see who is being marked of what? being a first time editor one has to start somewhere. You are using a lot of terms and acronyms only for initiated people which creates a feeling of exclusion and rejection, that seems in opposition with the basic founding pillars of wikipedia. I am being objective and bring sources that help establish that validity and existence of a notable project which systematically get dismissed or ignored. The article is clearly not spam but refers a notable tool and is a valid alternative to proprietary ones which figure in wikipedia. In the interest of neutrality Tuleap deserves it’s place on wikipedia. Matemaz (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this thread has been a big eye opener for me as well. But then, I stumbled upon this. In wikipedia's terms: "In several recurring press articles in different languages... bashing bullying behaviour from members of the community towards newcomers, and an unwelcoming attitude towards expert contributors/contributions". It's apparently a well known fact that some people confuse "defending" wikipedia and wrecking it. Just egos. So no contrib from me anymore. Editing or material. Alain Pannetier (talk) 02:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deletionists have just dug in, refusing to see "clearly" the mounting evidence for notability and reliability of third-party sources coming from academic and media sources. There's also that utter disregard of Pillars of Wikipedia, of what Wikipedia is all about. The scare quotes over "clearly" is a dig at comments above that use the term (and similar expressions) only rhetorically, if not hyperbolically. Psy~enwiki (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Infoworld Bossy award reference and the Opensource.com article are enough to establish notability for me, and there are plenty of non-independent sources that can be used for content (which is not atypical for software). I don't read enough French, but [1] also has several likely hits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That a publication that wants to push FOSS rated it highly is laudable, for the magazine. In a field that has very little competition (how many free and open source software applications for project management are available?). And the german catalogue has been discussed. Stephan Schulz thinks it confers notability on all subjects listed because students wrote about them (os something similar) while two editors, who regularly review RSes for notability purposes feel it proves that the software exists, but not that it confers notability on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't really parse your first two sentences in this context. With regard to the rest: please do not misrepresent me or any sources. I've not referenced the "german catalogue" in my argument above, and, as I said on

WP:RS/N, it is not a catalogue at all. It's a collection of student theses, released as a report by a university institute. It's gray literature, but it is not "a catalogue" at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry you can't parse it. Let me help you. https://opensource.com/business/15/1/top-project-management-tools-2015 is only interested in pushing its own agenda. It does not confer notability on Tuleap.

Tuleap is one out of how many open source project management tools in this class? There are Gantt chart tools, etc. Nothing like Tuleap. But just because it's a large tool used by many companies and meets their needs does not make it notable. It just makes it useful. LibreOffice is notable because it is written about by many, many sources. Tuleap is not in that same class.

You discussed http://www.dhbw-stuttgart.de/fileadmin/dateien/KOS/pub_kos.content_1.2015.band1.pdf at RSN. Two other uninvolved editors both stated that it's not a RS> One stated that it is a catalogue. The other stated that it could be used to support its existence but not confer notability on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would that agenda be an why does it reduce the notability conferred by that source? Yes, I agree that LibreOffice is in another class. But then Jupiter is in another class than 90377 Sedna, and we still have articles on both. As for the RS/N discussion on the KOS report, none of the two other commentators commented on reliability, and Guy has reconsidered his initial comment. Indeed, strictly speaking, no-one but you has called it a catalogue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it looks like Turandot was easier to convince... Alain Pannetier (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is a 2015 installment of periodic studies conducted by the Open Source Competence Centre of the Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University. Five different studies are bundled in the installment: 1/ Studies of private clouds (128 pages), 2/ Speech Recognition (82 pages), 3/ Software Development (48 pages), 4/ NoSQL databases (60 pages), 5/ Wide-Columns Databases (58 pages). In the 3rd Part (Software Development), the study explains the selling points of Scrum and Kanban agile development methods for enterprises and why they gain acceptance in the marketplace. Then the evaluation criteria are presented along with their respective weights in the final mark. Selection criteria are also explained. Five tools are tested, the two higher scoring products are presented in more detail. Tuleap scores the higher mark. With this I believe, we can tick the box "It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field" Wikipedia:Notability (software) Alain Pannetier (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this paper a catalogue (as in "list"), to convey the idea that there is no appreciation of the tools, is purely partisan.

Also there seems to be confusion about "Project Management". Tuleap, is a forge, which means that it includes SCMs (SVN, Git/Gerrit), and Continuous Integration tools (Jenkins/Maven), plus of course document management and Kanban board. So it's not the kind of tool that will support pure PMP-type Project managers.

And please elaborate on the number of large companies you would need to lift your rating from "useful" to "notable". Once all large companies use it, it would probably be "notable". So apparently there are a number of thresholds somewhere on the Goerlitz Scale between useful (around 10 now?), notable (?) and ubiquitous. Could you please disclose these numbers??? Alain Pannetier (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making it seem as though this is my

criteria

? The point is not the number of companies that use a product, it's the number of RSes that discuss it. You know that, but you would rather attack me that find such sources. Oh, right. None exist so you try to beat the messenger. I;m sorry your highness. The battle is lost.

And for the record, the Katalog calls itself that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Can you give a page number and/or context? I've looked through the document, and the first 30 of 180 occurrences of "katalog" (case-insensitive) all refer to the "Kriterienkatalog", i.e. the list of criteria developed to compare and evaluate the software. The document uses this catalogue of criteria to systematically look at the software. That does not make the document itself a catalogue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were? In the first it uses the compound word. Katalog = catalogue = catalog. The systematic examination by students of software to list it and then you may choose that which appeals to you to save your institution money. That's all this catalogue is. It's not even a comprehensive catalogue, a selective catalogue. These are the best of useful software. That doesn't make it notable, only a catalogue of useful software. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this answer is responsive. Yes, I know that "Katalog" (German) = "catalogue" (English). In fact, I can read German fairly well. Yes, the word "Katalog" appears in the document. But never to describe the document itself (or at least not in the first or even fist 30 occurrences of "[Kk]atalog"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"it's the number of RSes that discuss it". I think that if by this you implicitly mean that one source is not enough, then we're progressing. Well, then there is the framasoft one (already identified by Matemaz) which has effectively a very similar approach and structure and which you have discarded without ever explaining why. First selection and evaluation criteria are described. Then the tools in competition are described (FusionForge, Redmine, IBM Rational, Tuleap, Atlassian, Improve). As you can see all the Gotha of forges is here. And the author is actually a competitor from Enalean. So that can hardly be out of promotional motivations in favour of Tuleap. Also please note that a number of articles don't cite Tuleap but the "OpenALM" name - which is different from the old Borland OpenALM offering. Alain Pannetier (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2016 (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.