Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbo hunt and peck

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. -- Steel 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turbo hunt and peck

Seems to fail WP:NEO. No sources are given as to this phrase's widespread use. Crystallina 01:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hunt and peck typing. It does seem to be used occasionally (about 2 google hits on forums), so is a possible search term. Yomangani^talk 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redicect and merge a maximum of one sentance to Hunt and peck typing per Yomangani. I think we can sefely lose the last sentange about Tony Recchia "creating and perfecting" it. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 05:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Two hits on Google forums isn't enough to even keep this around as a redir. Delete per nom. JDoorjam Talk 06:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Appending "turbo" to something doesn't necessarily warrant a separate article -- especially when it doesn't appear to be a common term. Kevin 07:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm really surprised no one's made a "turbo delete" joke yet. JDoorjam Talk 22:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 12:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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.