Deletion of Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement

Comment: WP:GNG and  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS||WP:CORP)

Comment: 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 . If this group becomes notable then this article can be recreated at a later day when it can pass GNG
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per Ocaasi. While not overwhelming in volume or neutrality, sourcing appears adequate per  and . (I can think of a few Wikipedia articles on WMF projects that have less independent coverage, but I guess that's just 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ORG||WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: The group is described at some length in Forbes and Techdirt - that's enough for me; they meet .  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 equests 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:R)

Comment: As per Jimbo and  Fails   and  and as per  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:GNG||WP:NOT)

Comment: 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  but do nothing for . 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  lightly, but this is the sort of situation for which it was written
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:IAR)

Comment: See...
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 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  the subject of the article must be the subject of significant coverage. To quote : ''"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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: Whomever attempted deletion this for A7 should be sanctioned or de-sysopped, in my opinion. This seems to have been a flagrant  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)