Well, I went and looked at the archived discussion and quite frankly, I have to agree that notability was not established. Skimming over the comments I got the impression that the people voting "keep" were not familiar with Wikipedia policies and thus were not able to make an effective argument to keep the article.

Wikipedia is more concerned about what they consider to be reliable sources. It reminds me of Feudal Japan (and the fictional Rokugan from the Legend of the Five Rings role-playing game) where evidence of a crime was based on testimony, and naturally of course the testimony of high ranking officials carried much more weight. So it was possible to know someone was guilty but "prove" they were innocent. It's important to think of Wikipedia in a similar light. Actually, that probably goes for traditional encyclopedias as well. As the saying goes, he who wins gets to write the history.

If you want to really test how biased Wikipedia is then wait for some articles to be published about MojoMojo and then create an article in Wikipedia about it. Until then, at best you can claim the article was unfairly singled out for deletion.