Deletion of Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement

Comment: to Paid editing on Wikipedia, which will be live shortly (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation/Paid_editing_on_Wikipedia|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documents:  Phil Gomes' original blog post, the Facebook group itself and one of their Group Documents; and a link to an archived version of WP:COI.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,  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: fails entirely to meet  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 .  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:WEB)