Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PassThePopcorn

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Whether a subject is "legal" is no reason for deletion, however, the claim of non-notability stands, and is a reason to delete. Courcelles 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PassThePopcorn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NN and illegal too. MJH (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Illegality is no reason to delete an article (see e.g. homicide). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. There's 2 sentences in a USA Today story[1]. Google Books gives a reference in Internet Censorship: Protecting Citizens Or Trampling Freedom? by Christine Zuchora-Walske but won't let me read it. But I can't find anything else: it might merit a mention in BitTorrent tracker but isn't notable enough for its own article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, my "illegal" opinion was not germaine, the issue is that the article fails WP:GNG---MJH (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.