- 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 deleted. Peridon (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- TFAHB (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)
Neologism: made-up, blatantly non-notable. Prod declined by creator, and still no speedy category for this sort of thing. Hairhorn (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I placed the PROD tag and agree with this deletion for the same reasons; there is no evidence that anyone uses this acronym except the person who created the article. Perhaps this could have been speedied as a hoax, but let's nail its coffin shut firmly. Ubelowme U Me 12:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable neologism. CtP (t • c) 20:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged for speedy deletion - I have tagged the article as G3 of the speedy criteria as it is obviously a joke and provides nothing appropriate and serious for an encyclopedia. This edit suggests the editor is not here to edit constructively. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 15 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.