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 speedy delete per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Hamlets Defence (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)

Unreferenced, and apparently unverifiable, neologism. Fails WP:V criterion. The Anome (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. I.E., Anome. No references whatsoever and I have never heard this term used. LogicalCreator (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage to be notable; appears only to be jargon in a small clique. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just because you call it something different, doesn't change it from Troll (internet). Not notable enough to even warrent a redirect. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Term invented on an internet forum; may be notable among members of that forum, but it hasn't attracted any coverage in reliable sources per a search. Effectively WP:NEO and doesn't meet WP:GNG by a mile. --Batard0 (talk) 06:19, 25 October 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.