Talk:Tuleap

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

no consensus, 8 February 2016, see discussion.
delete, February 17 2012, see discussion.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment[edit]

I know this title was deleted sometime ago. Fast forward to 2015, I'm doing a survey of various open source project management apps, ACTUALLY installing them. And I happen to think that Tuleap and a bunch of other project mgt apps are worth considering. I'll build this page incrementally. So, deletionists, please chill a bit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Psy~enwiki (talk • contribs) 03:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! I'm taking stock of open source project management applications. Good ones are hard to come by. So even if there's less secondary "news" sources for such apps, I submit that they're worth some space here. It's hard to argue with deletionists. It's not as if for every piece of knowledge there's always some "notable" third-party references out there waiting to be used in the citation. Psy~enwiki (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]