Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todoyu


 * 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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Todoyu

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable software Strongyards (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC) * Delete per nom. UltraMagnusspeak 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable. There are hundreds of this sort of program, "alpha state", etc., no WP:V sources, it's just soap-boxing. • Anakin (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There exist several different programs in the field of project management. -Many of those are listed in wikipedia (about 107 if i did not miscount) as well (Comparison_of_project_management_software), so why should this be different in this case / which aspect of notability is missing? Arkaydo (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete In answer to the question from the creator of the article "which aspect of notability is missing?", what is missing is evidence of third party coverage. I have looked at dozens of Google hits for todoyu. I have seen numerous download sites, some sites that promote or market this software (e.g. The Open Source Marketing Agency), this Wikipedia article, etc, but no sign of any independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk)
 * Keep The software is mentioned in various, serious context. For example:
 * Top 5 open source project management apps to watch by Computer World Australia.
 * Open Source Business Foundation allocates 3rd place of the Open Source Business Award 2009 to todoyu, a part of the website IS in english. Gold-Sponser of the price was Microsoft. Sopera und Oxid eSales have won as well.
 * Expert article on bei heise.de, in german. heise is one of the most important publisher in german speaking europe.
 * CH Open Source Awardstodoyu wins silver award at the swiss open source award.

>You might point out that most of these mentions are in german. But this doesn't meens that they are unimportant. >"Alpha-State": you're right. Nevertheless updates are published weekly on SourceForge.net. A sign that it's pursued seriously. silentsteps (talk) 20:20 MET, 14 October 2009  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - article does not assert notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per the evidence that silentsteps has presented --UltraMagnusspeak 11:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - sources create a presumption of notability per WP:N. As WP:MILL points out, the standard for notability must logically be higher than merely the existence of independent sources, or every suburban restaurant with two reviews would qualify for a page.  The defining line must be that the article makes a claim of notability, which the sources then support, and that's not the case here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor trade awards and trade-press coverage fail to show that this software has any historical or technical importance of the kind needed to make it a proper subject for an encyclopedia article.  This article is pure sales brochure, containing hardly any information that might show real significance; only a features list and self-praising puffery: It is geared to the needs of SME's, tailored to project-related work and suitable for agencies, consultants, architects or lawyers. Likewise, it is suitable for use in project teams of mid-sized corporations.  Other "keep" arguments are essentially me-too, other stuff exists; Wikipedia is not a free web host for sales brochures for every maker of "project management" software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm with Ihcoyc/Smerdis; there really isn't significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrated here, and I could not find any such coverage when I searched.  I have read the German-language sources and I can confirm they're not the kind of coverage that would justify a Wikipedia article.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.