Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on a Facebook page --- yes, a *Facebook page* --- created with great sturm und drang in 2012. Much drama at the time, including intervention by Jimbo and a non-consensus AfD. Failed WP:ORG and GNG then and fails both now, with the added factor of falling afoul of WP:PERSISTENCE. There is a section on CREWE at Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, which is more than enough. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC) Note: either deletion or redirect is perfectly OK with nominator. Coretheapple (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to still be active, seems to be enough sources to pass WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not even close, not for GNG and certainly ORG. Blogs (including a "Forbes article" that is a user-contributed blog, not staff-written), ridiculous sourcing to Wikipedia itself, and incidental mentions in articles on the general issue. The most widely cited articles are a Techdirt blog that doesn't mention CREWE, and that non-staff written Forbes.com blog. And then there is the overriding issue that this is an article about a Facebook page,  not an organization. Because there isn't any. Coretheapple (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia where the subject is mentioned. Not independently notable & no need to have this covered in two articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. cK.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect per K.e.coffman. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment—I am involved with CREWE, and I was always rather skeptical of this article's existence. I think the redirect is the most appropriate outcome. WWB (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment-I am the founder of CREWE and I think that the article doesn't meet notability criteria. Happy that someone thought to write it but... yeah... Redirect. -- Philgomes (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Move to WP space. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Move to Wikipedia project space. Being in project space has the advantage of linking to other Wikipedia: namespace pages, which seems to have been an issue with this page in the past. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikipedia project space and redirect the article title per K.e.coffman. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Moving to WP project space doesn't help the average reader. BTW, I am one of the 752 members of CREWE. I am also a member of a Bill Maher fan group on Facebook that is larger than that. Of course, Maher is a very popular guy, he's the best, but it just shows how relatively small CREWE is, and how disproportionally sized this article is in relation to the group's total membership. (Also, this is really a meta-discussion, since we are talking about conflict-of-interest editing and I, as well as several !voters, have a potential conflict of interest just by being in the group.) So, in conclusion, redirect. epicgenius (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Userfy While article has RS, they are linked to a specific moment in time - a tight time frame in 2012 - which may not meet the breadth of coverage required by GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification, which user's namespace would you place it in? If it doesn't go to the creator (Ocaasi), it would go to Wikipedia space if no user is willing to host it. epicgenius (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to COI on Wikipedia in the appropriate section. Agree the organization did not 'take off' past it's initial burst of coverage.  I don't know what it will do in my userspace since I'm rarely dealing with any COI issues these days.  No objection to a separate WP:CREWE page for info and link to facebook or signups or whatever people want to do with it.  Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 01:43, 23 April 2017 (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.