Indeed.

> Just because other projects which appear to be non-notable have not had their articles deleted deleted doesn't make this article notable.

I've well aware of this fallacy, and there's a Wikipedia policy about it.

What I'm questioning is the impartiality of the person who marked MojoMojo for deletion. They have not done the same for other wiki software with fewer external references.

> The OP is obviously very passionate about the project

Yes, I am passionate about MojoMojo, and it has already taken me more than a few hours to wage this stupid war, during which I would have much rather coded some features up. I'm not exaggerating when I'm saying that some people just have nothing better to do than hang out on Wikipedia all day, marking for deletion articles completely outside their area of competence, then engaging in an ego battle about it, and accusing venerable folks like Daisuke Maki of spammy practices when they pitch in to keep the page up.

Wikipedia has various other mechanisms to indicate that an article needs more verifications (badges like "citation needed", "needs more 3rd party sources" etc.). Marking a rather new article for deletion is gratuitous when said article is about open-source software and does actually list references (including a 3rd party one, CPANTS).

Think "Don't you have some real criminals to catch, officer?"

> if the whole point of this was just to get people to check out MojoMojo, it worked. :)

Not the whole point, but the Streisand effect was intended.