Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement

{{not a ballot}}

:{{la|Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement}})

Declined CSD A7, or rather, speedied by Jimmy and reverted by Ironholds. This is a procedural nomination. Seems this discussion is needful. Alarbus (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete The subject of PR firms editing Wikipedia has been much in the news recently, but this is a Facebook group, and these are almost never notable in their own right. Some of the sourcing has the distinct sound of a barrel being scraped.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep While it is true that Facebook groups are almost never notable, they are not automatically un-notable. When a Facebook group gets picked up by business magazines I see that as a clear indication of notability. The article needs some work though. Agathoclea (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Doesn't this belong in Wikipedia: namespace? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:*Not a hundred percent sure of what you mean, but the article about the group should be in namespace - this deletion discussion is in Wikipedia space. Further internal discussions on the ramifications on practice and policy will be in Wikipedia space. Agathoclea (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or merge to Paid editing on Wikipedia, which will be live shortly (draft here). As article-creator, I acknowledge that notability is far from ironclad here, and that available sources have largely been exhausted; however, I think there is a fair argument for its inclusion. Let's look at the sources: Forbes, Techdirt, and TechRepublic offer the strongest mentions of the subject from reliable sources for business and social media news. Forbes is writte by a PR expert, but someone unaffiliated with CREWE (CREWE member); Techdirt is a nice overview of the debate; and TechRepublic is not a particularly lengthy mention, but it is independent. The majority of other sources in the article come from PR trade publications and experts. Techdirt published an opinion piece by the head of the Public Relations Society of America (a CREWE member); Campaign Asia-Pacific has an opinion piece as well; PR Week wrote an overview of the debate, as did Institute for Public Relations; New Zealand Institute of Management has a blog post about CREWE; O'Dwyer's noted PR blog has a substantial piece (CREWE member); Lovell Communications has a mention on their blog; and the social media blog SocialFresh has an article (CREWE member) and a post from the same person on popular PR blog PR-Squared. There'a also a brief article from online pop culture magazine Cream, and a youtube podcast including notable members of the group. The remaining links are to primary documents: Phil Gomes' original blog post, the Facebook group itself and one of their Group Documents; and a link to an archived version of WP:COI. Off the record, I think it's important that we have articles about Wikipedia itself, although we should be particularly careful that they are neutral and independently sourced; also off the record I think sourcing will improve for CREWE over time. In this case, it's clear that the majority of interest is from sources related to the PR field; however, they are used cautiously and mainly for sourcing quotes. The article is well verified and neutrally written, covers all sides, but not in excessive detail. I think it's a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia and meets, albeit weakly, WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I should note that I wrote the article around the same time I joined CREWE. I'm not a PR professional or a paid editor and never have been. I do think the group is a good idea, because it spurs dialogue between historically opposing camps. I also joined WikiProject Cooperation, with the same intent of encouraging best practices from COI editors. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - fails entirely to meet WP:ORG and like many facebook groups, is likely to be ephemeral and of no notability outside that of individual participants, who by the nature of Facebook, may be just about anyone. CREWE is not even an organization; it is a facebook group. Fails as well to meet WP:WEB. Consider that a great many facebook groups on a great many topics may be mentioned tangentially or even directly in some news stories without thereby becoming notable in any way. The group has 264 members, has zero official position with either Wikipedia or any other formal organization. It's a perfectly ordinary facebook group, nothing more.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::Oh come on, those 264 members happen to include the chair and CEO of the Public Relations Society of America. Sure, that isn't an official endorsement, but by Jove if that doesn't say something. Most Facebook groups don't include such power players and aren't going to be the focus of an article in Forbes when they have just 264 members unless there is something pretty significant about them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Appears not to have outside notability. However, an article on the use of Wikipedia by people following proper and reasonable adherence to Wikipedia policies, or seeking to do so, would not fail that principle, and would have to be quite separately considered. Collect (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:*Please define "outside". Agathoclea (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::* No coverage in RS publications or sources. While the group has been mentioned in a lot of projectspace discussions, that does not confer "notability" for a mainspace article. Collect (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::* Why is [http://www.corpcommsmagazine.co.uk/features/2212-time-for-wiki-editing this] not an RS, for example? (Here's another random article from the same author in the same publication [http://www.corpcommsmagazine.co.uk/news/2258-coca-cola-changes-recipe-to-avoid-cancer-label].)ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::* First mention in paragraph 16 or so - and in connection with a specific person (Hobson) is not a significant assertion of notability. Can you find any RS source giving more than trivial coverage - as required by Wikipedia notability standards as a rule? Collect (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::*[http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhimler/2012/01/10/wikipedia-the-pr-pro-friend-or-foe/ Forbes], for one. Including all of the ones I mentioned below. Silverseren^C 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Ocaasi. While not overwhelming in volume or neutrality, sourcing appears adequate per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. (I can think of a few Wikipedia articles on WMF projects that have less independent coverage, but I guess that's just WP:OTHERSTUFF.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:GNG and WP:ORG are in my view now met (the very first line of the latter states "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" - that is the case here). Rangoon11 (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I am in a bit of shock right now. Did Jimbo really just delete the article out of nowhere in an out of process manner? A7 was very, very clearly not appropriate. Not to mention that, being personally involved in the subject, he directly violated WP:INVOLVED. I thought it was this kind of stuff he said he was going to stop doing? Silverseren^C 14:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::He's been pretty quiet on this matter. I guess he wanted to express his global opinion on the matter; not that what it is was made clear. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::He didn't have to do it in a manner that broke policy. He could have just filed a normal AfD. Silverseren^C 14:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:Anyways, the article. It has been featured in a number of news reports and specific industry publications, including [http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhimler/2012/01/10/wikipedia-the-pr-pro-friend-or-foe/ Forbes], [http://www.prweek.com/uk/features/login/1114954/ PR Week], [http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?d=2&m=2&y=2012 Techdirt], [http://www.campaignasia.com/Article/288532,opinion-wikiwars-pr-pros-seek-editing-rights-from-wikipedia.aspx Campaign Asia-Pacific] and [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120110/02160317359/should-pr-people-be-able-to-edit-otherwise-ignored-wikipedia-pages-their-clients-to-correct-errors.shtml Techdirt 2] as the news articles. The industry specific sources include [http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/3911-Tortuous-Wikipedia-Rules-Require-Expert.html O'Dwyer's] and [http://www.management.co.nz/executiveupdate.asp?eID=320 New Zealand Management]. There are also a number of other sources that fall in a range in between a news source and an industry specific source, including a number of official discussions by companies. I would think notability would be quite evident at this point. Silverseren^C 13:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete...See...WP:NOT...MONGO 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:* Can you be more specific? Silverseren^C 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:* Nevermind, I guess [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=481495690&oldid=481493938 this comment] explains your opinion well enough. Silverseren^C 15:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::: I hope the closing administrator will note that Mongo's recommendation above is not a valid rationale for deletion. Carrite (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Why is that..I linked to the policy page that delinates my rationale...do I have to copy/paste the clauses in that policy here to be specific...no.--MONGO 22:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::: You're exactly right, you don't have to say a single word to explain how your citation of the policy page "There Are Certain Things Wikipedia is Not" applies in any way to a discussion of how this article subject passes or fails to pass notability guidelines. And I trust the closing administrator will note that fact. Carrite (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::To be pendantic about it one can say that WP:NOT only comes into play when the subject matter passes GNG, but we decide not to allow it despite its apparent notability. Since the NOT clause is not specified it only leaves us with an admission of notability. Agathoclea (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Nice try.--MONGO 23:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep for now; however, this matter is essentially a policy discussion and should probably be treated in that way. Facebook groups are sometimes notable. This one might be. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - for a subject that isn't terribly notable, this one has some pretty solid citations. Quite a lot of it is close to Wikipedia: discussion; clearly, we shouldn't be writing articles on ourselves; and we don't want to encourage articles on Facebook groups now, do we... but seriously, this seems a worthwhile article, and Ocaasi has it just right above: there isn't a whole lot more to say here, but I guess it passes the bar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - naval gazing non encyclopedic trivia. Also as per Jimmy's comments - Youreallycan 15:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:* Neither Jimmy's nor your comments address the sources involved. It has nothing to do with naval gazing, but the coverage that the topic has received. It passes WP:ORG via the first line of that guideline and it passes WP:WEB per the first criteria of that guideline. Silverseren^C 15:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::*The stratospheric expansion of the www and all sorts of everyone being able to repeat what they read elsewhere means that citations are massively available about all sorts of everything - that does not make the subject worthy of inclusion in a project that has a stated educational and encyclopedic mission. - six million articles - five million of them educationally and long term notability worthless, and this is one of them. Youreallycan 15:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::* I don't think that the opinion that five million or our six million articles are useless is in line with anyone else. And it's not like the subject got routine, small-town coverage. It got significant coverage in major news sources. Silverseren^C 15:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::*I think it does :File:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete As per Jimbo and Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG and as per WP:NOT note for a facebook group it has only [http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/members/ 238 members] at the moment.Several Facebook groups with millions of members/fans/Likes and have more coverage do not have pages as they are not notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:* There are other Facebook groups that get significant coverage from reliable sources? If so, they should have articles too. I already explained above how ORG and GNG are met, very easily. What part of NOT are you referring to? Silverseren^C 16:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::*You stated your opinion , your belief, your interpretation of the guideline - you did not assert a fact of anything being met. Youreallycan 16:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::* It's my opinion that the guidelines say "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" and "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", respectively? Silverseren^C 16:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Notable, sources such as Forbes mention this group--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• I would suggest merging this to a more general page on public relations editing on Wikipedia, similar to Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia? I don't think there's an article on that though, is there? It might be a good idea to create a general article on that instead of small articles on minor PR groups like this one. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:* Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editing on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 16:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:** No, that's not an article, so it's inappropriate merge target. I was also thinking that merging this to the wider topic having received more coverage, [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-founder-attacks-bell-pottinger-for-ethical-blindness-6273836.html] etc. would be better. I can't find a suitable article though. So, in the mean time, this will do. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:***Yes, [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technology/19wikipedia.html?pagewanted=all here] is another good one that could be used for a broader article, in case anyone reading this has time to write one soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:****It's a work in progress of an article that is eventually meant to be moved into mainspace. Silverseren^C 16:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:*****Oh, my mistake, I didn't read your link--you're a step ahead of me. Ok, well, when that is moved to mainspace it will make an excellent merge target. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:******Perhaps, but that would be a discussion that would have to be separate from this AfD, since that doesn't relate to the notability of the subject. Silverseren^C 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Whomever attempted deletion this for A7 should be sanctioned or de-sysopped, in my opinion. This seems to have been a flagrant WP:IDONTLIKEIT violation of Wikipedia policy, nothing this deeply fleshed out and so patently obviously relevant should be murdered in the night like a thief. PROD would have been declined at once, let alone speedy. Kudos to the administrator who overturned this rogue action. This is going to be a news story in the MSM that reflects poorly upon the project, I'm sure... Policies and guidelines apply to EVERYONE. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:* Well...Jimbo did it. :/ Silverseren^C 16:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - For those of you who are dropping in at AfD because of the furore now certain to ensue here, please do remember that the question here is whether this article topic is the subject of SUBSTANTIAL coverage in MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT, PUBLISHED, RELIABLE SOURCES. Whether the group has 2 members, 238 members, or 2 million members is irrelevant; whether you agree or disagree with the objectives of the group is irrelevant; whether Jimmy Wales or any other Wikipedia Authority Figure loves or hates the group is irrelevant. It's all about the sourcing. For the record, I will note that I am a regular participant in the CREWE group as an informal "Wikipedian voice"; I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be a paid advocate or paid content writer. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename - Paid editing of Wikipedia or Wikipedia and Public Relations Professionals. By focusing on the debate rather than on a specific group we can avoid concerns about the group being too small or potentially ephemeral. The broader scope can also provide better context. The topic itself is notable. GabrielF (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The group is described at some length in Forbes and Techdirt - that's enough for me; they meet WP:GNG. If I took the time I bet they're mentioned by name in some of the many other solid-sounding sources for this article. I also must reject the notion of "renaming" i.e. changing the focus of the article - it would effectively prohibit an article about a tight, well-defined topic area in favor of what the deletionists usually call a "coatrack", an open-ended exploration of all the different groups that might ever have touched Wikipedia. For those who don't like this article, I should point out that this is not a Bugs Bunny cartoon and you can't stop the oncoming train by pulling down the windowshade. If this article turns out to be a lightning rod, good - much easier for us to assess the impact of WP:Requests for comment/COI with a practical example; much easier to assess the effects of a single-party conflict of interest in an article about a brand new group than one where the argument is about the image of some immense corporation with fifty years of history. Wnt (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment [http://www.thelocal.de/national/20120312-41281.html Daimler ‘altering own Wikipedia page’] is in the news today. This is an important issue, and far bigger than a single Facebook group. The phrase "Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" is classic spin doctoring, because when PR firms edit Wikipedia articles, it is usually to remove critical material on behalf of their clients. See also [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lobbying-company-tried-to-wipe-out-wife-beater-beer-references-6284622.html], Stella Artois is watched to prevent this from happening.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:: Quite possibly, however the accuracy of the group's name does not affect its ability to achieve notability under policy.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable, Facebook group, the sources are self-submitted puffery by the creators of the group who as PR are able to "print sources" like money on Wikipedia.

:There needs to be an article about the issues as a whole, but not about this Facebook group. The issues however and how they affect Wikipedia are important and should have an article, but there's not much coverage of it other than on Wikipedia Review (which I have no idea if it qualifies as a reliable source so might not really be viable to have an article with enough non-biased sources). Then again, there has been a recent burst of news articles on the subject in other media [http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/03/09/thousands-of-changes-made-to-wikipedia-from-within-house-of-commons/ such as by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism], with whom I've been in contact recently so it could be possible for something to be started. This is pure spin-doctoring as "ethical" when they are very deliberately lobbying to get Wikipedia policy and there are so many examples of gaming the system around this article it's abominable. See the previous discussion on the talk page (quote, "Robert Lawton: Those who follow the rules don't get noticed. 3 February at 14:31 · 5 Likes: Jeff Taylor, New Media Strategies — Adam Harris Berkowitz, NYU — Fred Bauder, Crestone, Colorado [who should know better] — Kris Gallagher, Northwestern University — John Cass [one of the admins of the group], Boston, Massachusetts") as well as on my own talk page (quote "you'll need to change Jimbo's mind and also get WP:COI changed", Silver Seren, founder of WP:CO-OP, CTRL+F on the page)

:The article paints the group in an overwhelmingly positive light with no mention of that goal, using, surprise surprise, a lot of quotes from similar and sometimes even the same PR outlets involved in running the group.

:It has been directly edited by Public Relations advocates such as and employees to try influence Wikipedia policy[http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement?diff=next&oldid=481478385], and WP:PAIDWATCH has come under attack by the same employees[http://wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=next&oldid=480326386] now who are trying to shut down the independent watchdog project of WP:PAIDWATCH (it used to be to directly discourage all WP:COI editing, now it exists just to try monitor the activities of corporate representatives to ensure they stay within the WP:COI policy rather than advocating its change to better suit Corporate Representatives, as the founders of WP:CO-OP have) and the founder has been threatened with being blocked by an administrator[http://wikipedia.org/?diff=next&oldid=480609314] for mentioning that those attempting to get the project deleted are also corporate representatives, with which direct attempts to influence policy seems to be in violation of WP:COI?

:Other than WP:PAIDWATCH, Jimmy is pretty much the only person associated with Wikipedia or WMF that seems to be actually standing up against [http://www.text100-uk.com/2011/12/why-astroturfing-exposes-your-business-to-legal-risk-hint-because-its-illegal/ this kind] of activity, his input is probably a good thing at this point as it looks like the corporate representatives have some influential individuals on their side to help mould policy to better suit them as they wish it...

:They appear to be attempting to create a chilling effect on discussion with that threat against Herostratus (and I was also targeted for harassment previously after my posts on the Corporate Representatives page and PAIDWATCH, after I added Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. to the PAIDWATCH wikiproject at 9:23[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Advocacy_Watch&diff=next&oldid=476476440], "bob rayner" arrived at 9:58[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Websense&diff=next&oldid=477158150] along with "Bilby" at 11:13[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Websense&diff=next&oldid=477164151] to talk:Websense to defend the companies' paid PR sockpuppeting — both whom are not members of wp:PAIDWATCH, but apparently founding members (the 5th and 7th respectively) of the previously mentioned Wikiproject working with the Corporate Representatives PR group, which most of them - as stated on the group itself (as you've probably seen) - are also members of themselves. After I edited in [http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement?diff=next&oldid=477930461 your reply to the group], speaking as the public representative for Wikipedia, I found that the very next edit after being reverted was bringing up a completely unrelated argument elsewhere as "ammunition" to get me, as an "enemy" of the group, blocked)

:Silver Seren and Fred Bauder are both very active members of the group themselves, this is a classic case of WP:COI and shows just how toxic the situation surrounding this article and the Corporate Representaties' advocacy group on Wikipedia, WP:CO-OP has become. That also goes to show just how serious the issues raised by WP:PAIDWATCH is, the subversion of Wikipedia's own policies by advocates here to suit corporate and political interests. This is already happening as per the examples raised on WP:PAIDWATCH, [http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=34826&view=findpost&p=299486 those with the most money to pay for groups of editors], the current and future developments of this are possibly the most harmful thing about Wikipedia, and how further it will go over time as "identity management" technology progresses... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::I have no information about any such allegiances, but it doesn't matter. People who have enough pull can print sources, and there's nothing we can do about it. If a pop star puts out another single, we cover it. If a PR group has the pull to get Forbes and Techdirt to print stuff about them, we cover it. We are in no position to evaluate the ulterior motives for every "reliable" source - if we did, there is some risk that we would simply have no sources left for anything at all. Wnt (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::The difference is, CREWE are making no bones about what they're doing and what they're after. I haven't seen, say, Lady Gaga publicly declare a position against WP policy and organize a group of PR flacks to loudly oppose it. This is nothing like a pop song. We're being WP:GAME'd. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 17:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::: The group's objectives are entirely unrelated to the matter at hand here, which is whether this article meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Your personal views about CREWE, whether they are accurate or inaccurate, are completely irrelevant to the issue and does nothing but obfuscate the basic question to be decided. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::(ec) WP:COI wasn't sabotaged by random PR flacks (if that is true) writing articles - it was sabotaged by ArbCom, as User:Will Beback could attest. If this is "gaming", then apparently the gamers have won the Grand Pooh/span>bahcy while we had no idea the ball had been served. What I'm sure of, though, is that abandoning a core standard like WP:GNG in response to this gaming is not a clever retort, but a disastrous retreat. Robust inclusionism is "a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far." Wnt (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::Congratulations! You have been successfully gamed. If I were a total WP:DICK, I'd walk away from this AfD secure in the knowledge that I could get away with virtually anything on WP as long as I bent its own policies back on itself in a contorted but superficially logical manner. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 18:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::Gamed at what, exactly? At keeping an article that tells me more about the root cause behind the sudden de facto demise of COI than I've learned from reading a very lengthy ArbCom proceeding and an RFC? This article is not a strength for the publicists, but a weakness. It is something they have to "manage" more than any client's account, which they don't get paid for, where they will constantly have to confront any issues that emerge out of policy. They wouldn't want what they want if they knew what was good for them, but that is, for some reason I cannot decipher, true of quite a few corporate-level lobbying activities of every variety. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::WP:ITSUSEFUL? Really? Also "there's no such thing as bad press". Coming from a PR background myself, I can tell you that no one involved on the pushy side of CREWE would regard an article about their non-organization to be a liability of any kind. Spin and damage control is what they do in their sleep. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::::: @SMcC. ASSUME GOOD FAITH. You obviously have strong feelings about paid editing. Fine. Now let's talk about whether this article's sources, cited and "out there on the internets," pass muster. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::Actually, I don't at all. You'll find me noticeably absent from virtually all debates about the topic (I don't believe that its impossible to write good encyclopedic material about something one is closely tied to, only challenging, and I very publicly avoid doing it myself, as detailed on my userpage; I won't even edit articles about my alma mater or monolithic former employers like Walmart the U.S. Air Force). I do, however, "feel strongly" (why do you use that as if it were bad thing?) about excessively legalistic and nit-picky misinterpretations and misapplications of Wikipedia policy that undermine the project's actual values and integrity. Please see WP:AAGF. I don't have to be assuming bad faith at all to find fault with what I see as such misinterpretations and misapplications. To the contrary, I'm ever mindful of the maxim that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions". I'm frankly getting a little tired of people accusing me of assumptions of bad faith (which is in itself an assumption of bad faith!) every other time I'm constructively critical. People need to thicken their skin a little and realize that they have no "natural right" to be free from people disagreeing with them and calling a spade a spade. WP needs more of that, not less, as our editorial quality has been continually declining. Anyway, I and others have already indicated clearly that we feel these sources do not pass muster for WP:GNG purposes; I don't see any point in regurgitating that in in an already-lengthy AfD. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::I thought as a part of your unblock requirements, you were not supposed to discuss paid editing. This is just you continuing the same confrontational behavior as prior. Silverseren^C 17:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rename and rewrite per GabrielF or delete otherwise or move to projectspace I don't care which: There's no question that the debate is at least marginally notable, but this particular quasi-organization isn't. It's no surprise that PR professionals, whose job it is to cultivate relationships with journalists, can drum up a "maybe just enough" level of press coverage almost entirely in PR publications that happens to mention the Facebook group, but I think we all know here that the coverage is of the "PR industry vs. Wikipedia" issue, not {{em|inherently of the Facebook group}}, which is mentioned incidentally. If tomorrow the group switched sites and became a YahooGroup called PRWiki or [laugh!] moved to Wikia and was a wiki there called WikiComms, the next article on the topic would mention the new location and name and not ever bother mentioning the then-defunct Facebook group. The name and location of the group is entirely tangential to the real issue, which is Wikipedia policy clashing with real-world commercial interests. There's no WP:COATRACK issue here. Keeping an article on the Facebook group itself on GNG grounds would border on wikilawyering, honoring the wording rather than the spirit of notability policy, because no one actually GAFs about the group itself, but rather about the issue they're raising, and we all know that the higher-powered members of CREWE can manufacture press coverage with trivial ease. Our system is wide open to WP:GAMING here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 17:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::To quote the Forbes article, quoting Gerry Corbett, chair and CEO of PRSA, "The effort by Phil Gomes and the group he has started on Facebook, is a critical advocacy activity that the Public Relations Society of America wholeheartedly supports." Sounds notable to me. Wnt (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I can see from the discussions on Jimbo's page that this article and its initial speedy deletion has been a source of major controversy. At the very core of this debate is whether this page is notable. It is not, in my view. It fails ORG, as has been mentioned earlier on this page. It fails our usual policy on Facebook and other social media pages being used as sources. It fails our guidelines on web presence being used as notable. It fails most basic interpretations on POV. Ultimately, this is an organisation which has a very contentious relationship with Wikipedia, and an article which creates a twisted form of 'feedback loop' should not be encouraged by its retention. doktorb _words^deeds 18:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:* So you're essentially saying we can't have articles on any PR related topic. Or really journalists for that matter...or anything in the media. Since they can always create a "feedback loop". This is pure hearsay. Most of the sources I listed above were written by people who are not a part of CREWE or were written before they were a part of it. Just because they are in the PR industry too doesn't make then involved, it just means that they are experts on the subject. Silverseren^C 18:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - as noted by a few folks above, the sources are tenuous at best. The Forbes article is less a discussion of this group than a discussion of PR pros editing Wikipedia; many of the other sources appear to be blogs and opinion pieces, some written by people involved directly or close-to-directly with this topic. (Good job getting those published, folks - you do your jobs well.) The group itself is a Facebook group, which as far as I'm concerned automatically indicates a lack of notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps there should be an article on paid editing and Wikipedia, though I'm not sure about that either. However, the Facebook group isn't notable just because the PR folks managed to get themselves a few mentions in the press. It certainly doesn't satisfy our notability guidelines for websites, and passing the general notability guidelines here isn't enough to keep this article. The group really isn't the major focus of most of the sources, paid editing however is, and frankly there's way too much conflict of interest here for me to be comfortable with this article. AniMate 18:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:: It's pure speculation as to how the articles came to be written.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per ASCIIn2Bme, Silver seren, Rangoon11, Wnt et al. Writegeist (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• delete any of the reliable sourced stuff is just trivial, in passing mentions, not actual coverage about an actual organization. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:*or trim and merge to Wikipedia in culture (although after looking at that article, it would require Wikipedia in culture to be massively cleaned up and made to approach something like an encyclopedia article instead of the hot mess it currently is.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep One The rule that Facebook groups are non-notable had been overtaken by events--specifically, by their increasingly wide use for serious purposes, The use of media changes, as our very own existence demonstrates, and we have to cover whatever is notable , even if it appears in unexpected places, or is documented in unexpected places. If any organization should be flexible, we should--but instead we're acting like an unaware teacher ten years ago refusing to let students use of internet sources. Two Events and organizations concerning Wikipedia are often notable, and the proof of our vaunted NPOV is that we cover them adequately. To refuse to do so is to admit we can only deal with others, but are incapable of appropriate editing if we're involved. Three In particular, an attempt to delete this looks like the extreme of COI, an attempt at suppression of something controversial in which we are involved. We'd throw out a PR flack who tried to do this for their organization, and I think the analogy holds. Four, I note one of the eds making a particularly long argument for delete has a well-known publicly declared prejudice against the activity that the group represents, and thus all of that long argument, is IDONTLIKEIT at best, or even "let's delete the article so we can put down those in the group, who are doing things I think are wrong" . . DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:: Well put as always. Based upon my reading of the sources, describing CREWE as simply a "Facebook group" is any case somewhat narrow, it seems more to be an organisation - however informal - which has established a Facebook page as a means of pursuing its goals.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::and that differs from most facebook groups .... how? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::: Many if not most were created and exist purely as Facebook groups.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Do most facebook groups get significant coverage from major news sources? I remember someone comparing CREWE at, I think it was Jimbo's talk page, to the Justin Bieber fan group. But the question is, does his fan group get significant coverage in the news? Silverseren^C 19:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::"Do most facebook groups get significant coverage from major news sources?" there are LOTS of facebook groups that have gotten as much trivial/passing coverage as this group has. And those other groups dont consist of PR professionals who make their living by working the media.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::I see we clearly have very different opinions of what constitutes "trivial/passing" coverage. For example, I wouldn't consider [http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhimler/2012/01/10/wikipedia-the-pr-pro-friend-or-foe/ the following] to be trivial coverage: "As it just so happens, I coincidentally received a Facebook message last week from another friend in the biz John Cass inviting me to join a new group called “Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement” (CREWE), which was started by Edelman’s Phil Gomes, another old pal from the digital PR trenches. Phil penned an open letter to Jimmy Wales...CREWE now has 72 members, including — in the same forum no less — long-time industry chronicler Jack O’Dwyer and his nemesis, PRSA, the industry’s U.S. trade association..." And it goes on from there into a number of quotes. Considering almost all of the article besides the first few opening paragraphs is about CREWE, I would think that to be substantial coverage. Silverseren^C 23:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Someone's "I"/"me"-couched personal editorial is a questionable source for notability purposes. If the same author had written "As it just so happens, I coincidentally received a Facebook message last week from my Aunt Edna..." that would not even in the faintest way help establish notability for the writer's auntie. Sorry. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::(ec) DGG, This is why I suggested renaming this to be about the issue instead of the pseudo-organization (in which I'm a participant). {{em|It's essentially nothing but an off-site wikiproject}} that uses Facebook to communicate instead of WT:CREWE. Think on that real hard for a minute. It's a gaggle of Wikipedia editors agreeing to collaborate on and discuss issues about a specific Wikipedia editing issue. This is the very definition of a wikiproject. That it happens to be using an off-site talk page does not make it magically special. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - It looks like where the coverage is independent, it's too thin. Tony Fox and AniMate above put it well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - per TonyFox and Animate. ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete pretty much per Animate, as well as the fact that he independent coverage is marginal at best. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. The article looks like your typical PR snow job itself. Almost all of the sources are self published sources: discussions in public relations blogs or publications, by or about the PR industry, or representing PR placements. The scope of the readership issue also suggests that these online entries don't have a significant readership outside the PR industry itself. And finally, the nominal subject of the article is a Facebook group, which itself argues powerfully against its historical durability or importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:*Notability has never been about importance - common misconception - only about being noted by independent sources. Agathoclea (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• ::I've always understood notability to mean some sort of lasting significance; if it were only about being noted by independent sources, I could easily write an article about every street in my town. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:::*That's where the term "multiple" comes into play. Agathoclea (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::*'Twas ever thus, that notability in Wikipedia has always meant long term historical notability. Facebook itself just barely qualifies as far as I'm concerned. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete- We have identified when others have a conflict of interest in writing. We have one here. As much as we think we are being neutral, our biases are visible to others. This should not be in article space unless another encyclopedia writes it, and we cite them, to avoid hypocrisy on the topic of conflict of interest. Dru of Id (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• I think that's a misreading of WP:COI and contradicted by the many valuable articles we already have on the subject of Wikipedia (Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia, Criticism of Wikipedia...). WP:COI is not about never editing when you have a conflict of interest, but about taking particular care to be neutral and non-promotional. This article is both. COI is not a reason to exclude it, only notability, which is a fair debate, but seems borderline at worst and decent at best. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• The articles you cited have been covered in depth, clearly passing guidelines. For this, which is still borderline, I'm not saying can't, I'm saying shouldn't, to avoid any possibility of impropriety. Dru of Id (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• An interesting opinion, Dru, but not to the heart of the question we are supposed to discussing here: does this article topic meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, which calls for MULTIPLE instances of SUBSTANTIAL, INDEPENDENT, PUBLISHED coverage in RELIABLE SOURCES? There's a Forbes magazine article showing in the footnotes, that's one... "Other encyclopedias have to do it first" is a novel and non-germane argument. "Neutrality" and "Promotionalness" (to coin a word) are editing matters, not cause for deletion... Carrite (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• That Forbes piece was written by a PR strategist and member of the Facebook group on what amounts to a blog or op-ed piece ("The opinions expressed are those of the writer"). Just saying... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Could be edited past A7, but as yet doesn't claim it's the first, the largest, the only... just says it's a group namedrop notinherited blogquote... if it's notable, we wouldn't be discussing sufficient sourcing; if it's encyclopedic, others will cover it. Here's Citizendium [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement]. Dru of Id (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::: Wow, Dru, great new metric for AfD — "Does CZ Cover It? Yes or No?" Here's Citizendium for [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=hamster&go=Go+To+Page HAMSTER]. I look forward to your forthcoming AfD nomination of Hamster. Carrite (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::Meant to include ":P" there; humor is lost in text; I'm unaware of a conflict in interest, notability concerns, or a lack of references for hamster. Is it sourced to blogs, too:? Dru of Id (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• If not kept in mainspace, move to Project space. It is obviously related to the project, and will help inform ongoing debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. While reliable sources mention CREWE in passing, the coverage is not significant and is insufficient to pass the general notability guideline. I wonder if some of this shouldn't be merged to the Edelman (firm) article, since this effort seems to be coming from Mr. Gomes' company. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 23:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

::Not true. I'm employed by Edelman, but CREWE is not an Edelman effort. It would not have gotten the traction it did if it was. --Philgomes (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to future recreation. I've given this a pretty good scouring. The Forbes piece counts as one, and a good one, but I'm not finding anything outside of a fairly outstanding spread of blog posts by PR peeps, which of course do not count towards GNG. I don't have the slightest doubt that this group will eventually pass muster — but right now sources are lacking and while this piece is written neutrally and sourced out sufficiently to take care of the needs of Verifiability, it is not gonna clear the bar at this time. Userfy to the content creator, who has done a commendable job with this piece. I'm sure much of this material will reappear when so-called "reliable" sources appear at some future date — but that's a crystal ball prediction, so this needs to leave mainspace for now. And Trout for all of you who failed to address sources but instead made some sort of lame variant of IDONTLIKEIT or ILIKEIT arguments here. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or merge or move into WP essay. For a Facebook group started in January 2012, remember wp:NOTNEWS and wait (at least) 6 months to see if the group disbands, or receives significant coverage for WP:GNG. Also, the article had multiple sources to Facebook, which seems desperate referencing to wp:primary sources. I would lean towards moving this into a WP essay about Facebook connections to Wikipedia. Others have noted some Facebook groups have millions of "members" which are still considered non-notable. Perhaps add an entry in "List of Facebook groups". -Wikid77 (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::NOTNEWS is, without exception, misinterpreted in AfD discussions. What it says is that breaking news should not be treated differently from older sources. Wnt (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:::I'm not going to comment on the notability or otherwise of CREWE, but I feel that NOTNEWS sometimes gets misused at AfD. If a rule required us to keep the encyclopædia 6 months out of date, that rule would be undermining one of wikipedia's greatest strengths. Today's headline stories shouldn't be exempted from the GNG - but if something achieved notability recently, why exclude it? bobrayner (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, the discussion in independent reliable sources (especially the Forbes source) is sufficient. If a decent mainspace merge target is created, then a merge is also a viable option. Fram (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:If you wanted a merge target, I'd think that one line in Criticism of Wikipedia would be more than sufficient. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::Which apparently doesn't exist as a standalone article anymore, as of Feb 1 of this year. Perhaps it could be revived? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:::I'm frankly more concerned that the best source here is from a Forbes blog where it is stated "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer." That makes it fairly clear that it's just a blog hosted by Forbes, rather than an article printed by Forbes. AniMate 20:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Already much talked about, only likely to grow in notability in the future. More sources will emerge. -- œ^™ 10:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Delete because their 'best' source Forbes is a glorified corporate shill. El duderino (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. From the standpoint of process, this is extremely thinly-sourced. Most of the listed "references" are blog posts and opinion pieces and the like, which can be helpful when meeting WP:V but do nothing for WP:N. From the standpoint of common sense, it could be sourced much better and still not be worth keeping, because it's a useless nothingburger of an article about a fundamentally non-notable topic. I don't invoke WP:IAR lightly, but this is the sort of situation for which it was written. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I am not particularly impressed with the independence of the sources. Wikipedia might well want to maintain information about this group in project space, but probably not a standalone main space article until or unless it gets more significant coverage, independent of both its membership and Wikipedia. Kilopi (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. As Silver serene documented with links, the group is central to the Forbes piece, and has been mentioned (at least) in a half dozen other sources. To dismiss the group as "corporate hacks" is really unworthy of MONGO, since the group has a number of members like Carrite and Cullen328 to my left and myself, since we typically write about American social-democracy, labor unions, cooperatives, and occasional syndicalists. I would say that the PR persons were far more understanding of my concerns about manipulating readers with "article quality surveys" that have been proposed and evaluated primarily as recruitment tools. You fellows should spend more time with Marx's "Critique of the Gotha Programme of German Social Democracy" and show some respect for capitalism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:*Comment As an active supporter of the group on Facebook, doesn't WP:COI apply to you, like Ocaasi, Silver Seren and Fred Bauder and any others who have not named themselves on the group so can't be known, in that you should not be !voting in this article's discussion? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

::*And so have you. Even Jimbo commented on this AFD despite a extremly clear COI - it is HIS project that is affected by that group. Being wikipedia editors actually we all have a COI. Should we protect the 'pedia? Should we whitewash alternate views? or do we want to protect the founding policies like GNG against those who try to ignore them when the subject matter is not to their liking? Agathoclea (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:::*From WP:GNG: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." Even if you believe (as I do not) that the existing sourcing is sufficient to satisfy the GNG, rejecting this article does not in any way imply that we are rejecting the GNG itslef. We are individuals with sense and discretion, and the GNG reflects that fact. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

::* Selina is quick to wield the tarring brush, but not so quick to identify herself as a CREWE participant. Since she's obviously big on guilt by association, confusing that with economic conflict of interest, she should now scour herself for her severe ethical lapse. (By the way, Selina, wasn't a condition of your unblock a topic ban from this very topic???) Carrite (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete As Wikid77 says above, so articulatory. Our policy on GNG and WEB works well so as to ensure this sort of article is not retained. Not notable, not important, not neutral, and counter to WP:COI 78.86.102.100 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - why do we consider a social group to be notable?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:*Maybe because it has independent sources and passes GNG? We consider a lot of nicknacks notable just because they are in some obsucure books only read by "anoraks" Agathoclea (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:* April 6 Youth Movement is also a social group. A Facebook group, at that. Should it also be deleted? Silverseren^C 05:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

::*WOW. just wow. You really have that little understanding about Notability coverage? That really provides me and I hope the closing admin as well as to how much weight to give your opinions and statements. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:::* I've already made my argument for Notability higher up on the page. Right now i'm trying to combat the ridiculous notion that Facebook groups and social groups cannot be notable. Silverseren^C 19:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

::::*Do you have an example of a notable Facebook group of a size comparable to this one? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::*A notable Facebook group would be one with a corresponding organization, huge size, and extensive coverage to the point that it makes Google News often. This does not cut it.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete There is a huge amount of content here and I have not read it all. But I read quite a bit, and I feel like if the article's subject was notable then I would have found indication of notability in the amount of content I read either on the article page or in this talk space. Undoubtedly the article's subject has been mentioned in reliable sources, but it is mentioned for the debate about paid editing and not to feature the group or its mission or ideas. I see no sources which describe the group for the sake of describing the group and its mission; sources mentioning this group do so as a footnote in another topic. I see no evidence of passing WP:GNG. If this group becomes notable then this article can be recreated at a later day when it can pass GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not making a formal recommendation to "keep" or "delete" for several reasons: First of all, I have participated in the CREWE Facebook group under my real name, Jim Heaphy, so I have a COI. (Coincidentally, this debate has motivated me to abandon any pretense of anonymity here on Wikipedia. I am who I am - a Wikipedian but not a PR professional.) Secondly, I think that this is a borderline case, and the underlying debate is far more important than whether or not this article is kept. Finally, I said that I wouldn't on Jimbo's talk page.

:I trust that the closing administrator will focus on comments about the notability of this specific topic and the quality of the sources that discuss it. This debate is not about the perfidy or virtue of PR people. Its not about what Jimbo thinks or has done. Its not about the deletionist versus inclusionist philosophies. It's not about whether it's possible in the abstract for a Facebook group to be notable. It's not about whether PR professionals (or anyone else who communicates with reporters and editors) can motivate the creation of reliable sources. It's not about WP:COOP or WP:PAIDWATCH. All of those are important subjects to discuss, but not as part of this specific deletion debate.

:I endorse the comments above by Carrite, who wants the article deleted for now, and by DGG, who thinks it should be kept. Many others have been constructive here. There are many references, but for the most part, they all have problems and few can be described as fully reliable and independent sources giving significant coverage to this specific topic. All of us may have differing thresholds for quality of sources - I try to be a moderate.

:I believe that the experienced Wikipedians participating in CREWE in recent months have conducted themselves, on balance, with integrity and forthrightness. I invite scrutiny and constructive criticism of my contributions both there and here. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The group includes a lot of notable people so claims about the number of members are an invalid basis for deleting. What we have with the Forbes Article is pretty significant. Though the author did join the group per an invite, I sincerely doubt he writes articles on Forbes about every Facebook group he joins. We also have a significant mention in TechRepublic by someone who appears to have no affiliation with the group, though does have one indirectly with Wikipedia. Cream magazine provides another more than trivial mention by an author apparently unaffiliated with the group. Those mentions alone would mean it meets WP:WEB. We also have some significant coverage of Gomes' letter that is connected with this group. We may discuss the possibility of creating a new article on paid editing and Wikipedia or maybe even one on Gomes as he appears to be somewhat notable, but the article on its own meets the criteria for inclusion, even if people don't like it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I see a lot of commentary about issues other than whether this article meets community standards. The question is "Does this article meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline?" To meet WP:GNG the subject of the article must be the subject of significant coverage. To quote WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The group is described directly and in detail in Forbes and Techdirt, and I think that satisfies the criteria at hand. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Sources seem reasonable enough for it to meet the notability guidelines, and even if many are blogs, blogs can be anything in this day and age, rather like facebook pages. Article itself probably could do more to emphasise why these things and this one in particular is notable, but at this point that doesn't seem like enough to delete it over. — Isarra (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - This article is well sourced by independent groups (Forbes, Techdirt, TechRepublic) and clearly notable.--StvFetterly(Edits) 14:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: As he who helped start and helps maintain the CREWE effort, I want to be very clear that CREWE is a group of people who are interested in exploring the ways that PR and Wikipedia and work together for mutual benefit, defined narrowly as cooperation toward more accurate and balanced entries. The fact that it's on a Facebook group is circumstantial. In other words, the CREWE entry isn't "an entry about a Facebook group" that has the potential to set the precedent of a cascade of entries about Facebook groups. In fact, I foresee many activities taking place under "CREWE." None of this has any bearing on whether to keep or chuck the entry (a topic I'd rather stay out of and, besides, CREWE's mission doesn't change either way) but it does help give context to this discussion. --Philgomes (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

:*If this isn't "an entry about a Facebook group", then why does the article start by saying, "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) is a Facebook group..."? I'd suggest that you might want to edit the article and fix that, if it weren't for the fact that it'd be a huge WP:COI for anyone involved in the group to edit its entry at all - not that that stopped Ocaasi or Silver Seren. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:01, 19 March 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.