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. bd2412 T 00:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling a Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

As per WP:DICDEF, Not sure if it is included in the Urban dictionary, as both current references point to the non-RS blogspot, but that is irrelavent. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:DICDEF.CoronaryKea (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For the above reasons, and because there are no reliable sources for this turn of phrase actually existing in notable discourse in the first instance. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - I also can't find any RS demonstrating this is a real turn of phrase. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 09:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is not a definition that throws up RS beyond the reference given in the article. Not widely used. Britishfinance (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per others. Omni Flames (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2019 (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.