Deletion of Fudzilla (2nd nomination)

Comment: As was stated, it fails the |general notability guidelines, and therefore has no place on Wikipedia. This fact is reinforced by the fact that the article is an orphan, and, most importantly, ''the overall lack of sources''. If, as it seems, there is significant bias related to this article, I would also suggest '''creation protection''' to avoid a repeat of events
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: back to policy, and away from opinion and canvassing. Simply not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show it passes either  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Per  (and the closing reason behind the first AFD nomination). There isn't ''significant coverage'' from secondary |reliable sources that are independent of the subject and cover this subject ''in-depth'' and as its primary focus. This is required in order to pass , and it does not. Also, note that they are canvassing votes here by discussing this AFD in http://www.fudzilla.com/news/40112-wikipedia-editors-try-to-kill-fudzilla-again their blog
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:GNG)