Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
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  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  here
— User:SMcCandlish, 17:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:COATRACK||WP:LAWYER||WP:DGAF||WP:GAMING (Wikipedia:Coatrack articles)