Deletion of Todoyu

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM||WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:WEBHOST)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: sources create a ''presumption'' of notability per .  As  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:MILL)

Comment: as not notable. There are hundreds of this sort of program, "alpha state", etc., no  sources, it's just soap-boxing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)