Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pete Collective


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Pete Collective

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Social group that received some passing news coverage, none of it apparently in any depth. A Google News search turns up nothing current on the group; a search of the Google News archives turns up three short pieces from September 2005: six short paragraphs in v3.co.uk, six short Spanish-language paragraphs at La Flecha (filed under "Curiosidades"), and four paragraphs at the Register, which describe the group as a "pointless bit of fun". Following indications in the article, I found a seven-sentence article in the Sun, September 2007. The article indicates that there was coverage in the Guardian as well; however, a search of their website, whose archives go back at least through 2005, turned up nothing. From the small number and brevity of the articles, I'd say that the subject fails the depth-of-coverage test at WP:ORG, and fails WP:GNG generally. Ammodramus (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. This is literally something somebody thought up one afternoon, and insignificant coverage from reliable sources gives the subject the barest standing under GNG and exactly no standing under WP:ORG. A google search for the date range 10/1/2007 and today brings up a total of seven hits. Nothing to keep. BusterD (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:ORG, as above. Performed my own searches as well, and see nothing recent or substantial in any way to warrant an article.  Theopolisme  TALK 02:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:19, 10 July 2012 (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.