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

:{{la|MojoMojo}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|MojoMojo}})

Nominating for the similar reasons the article was nominated for in its first nomination: Non-notable software, references consist only of trivial or non-reliable sources. Article was userfied instead of deleted, and the user decided (incorrectly, I believe) that the topic suddenly was notable enough to re-introduce to normal article space. Some sources have been added since, but they seem to be either all blogs, trivial mentions or other non-reliable sources. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

• Delete per nomination, yet another "content management system". Language of the article is more neutral than most, but still contains unindependently referenced brags on its complexity and power. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. IMHO, the nom is right - I'm not seeing anything in the way of WP:RS (Rawr and stuff) 04:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lack of solid secondary sources. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2011 (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.