- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms
- Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
As stated by the title, this is a statement not by the Wikipedia community but by public relations firms that are listed at some length in the statement itself, along with other material relative to this external effort by some members of the public relations industry. It is, in effect, a press release hosted by Wikipedia. At its heart is a self-serving "statement" describing that they're going to be good corporate citizens. Fine. Do that. But make that statement on your own website or websites. Recently on the talk page we have a discussion as to whether a lengthy list of press coverage belongs in the essay. I say "enough." This page runs counter to WP:NOT, specifically that Wikipedia is not a web host, as well as WP:ESSAYS. It is a statement by external parties concerning how those external parties should behave on Wikipedia and not by Wikipedia editors concerning Wikipedia. In addition, publication of this statement promotes the firms listed ad nauseum therein and I think it also is contrary to WP:SOAP. Coretheapple (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:ESSAYPAGES, which states: "Essays about Wikipedia may be written by anyone; some represent widespread norms, others only represent minority viewpoints. ... Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight." Disclosure: I am the originator of this essay, and therefore ackowledge I have a vested interest in it. WWB (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- If you or any Wikipedia editor engaged in public relations wanted to write an essay from a Wikipedia editor standpoint, no one could possible object. It wouldn't matter what you say. You could talk about how you think p.r. people should behave, covering everything in this essay. The problem is that this is not an essay by you as an editor. It is a statement by external parties which are listed, with a solicitation for how to "join." Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- All of the participants are required to maintain Wikipedia user accounts. Those who do not have been removed. You are trying to draw an arbitrary line around who "counts" on Wikipedia, and there's no valid reason to do so. This project is all about Wikipedia, and so deserves a page in the Wikipedia mainspace. WWB (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I just don't think that public relations firms should utilize Wikipedia bandwidth for a self-serving statement naming your firms and in effect advertising what great guys you all are, how ethical you are, how upstanding. If each of you editors produces an essay of your thoughts no one could object. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is quite bizarre - as Wikipedians we don't like it when PR people do things secretly and under the table to manipulate content on Wikipedia. So when PR professionals are attempting to be transparent and forthcoming and engaging us on our terms, on our wiki territory, in the spirit of dialogue, you also don't like it? You seem to be viewing the page as preening about how "great" the PR firms are, when in fact it's the opposite – it is a way to keep these firms responsible and accountable for their actions on-wiki. Want evidence? We know for a fact that shortly after this statement was signed on to, the MSLGROUP (5th largest PR conglomerate in the world) sent a memo around to their 3,000 staff that they are now officially a signatory to this statement, and for employees to abide by Wikipedia's Terms of Use and principles, and to engage on the Talk page first if they are working on Wikipedia. This was sent by their chief communication officer to the entire firm. That is a huge win. I'd invite you to rethink what this page has done and should continue doing in light of its effect on the industry. More can be found in this slide deck, from our Wikimania 2014 presentation, which I should note, we co-presented with Christophe Henner, currently Wikimedia Foundation chair of the board of trustees. [1] @Schiste: -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I just don't think that public relations firms should utilize Wikipedia bandwidth for a self-serving statement naming your firms and in effect advertising what great guys you all are, how ethical you are, how upstanding. If each of you editors produces an essay of your thoughts no one could object. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- All of the participants are required to maintain Wikipedia user accounts. Those who do not have been removed. You are trying to draw an arbitrary line around who "counts" on Wikipedia, and there's no valid reason to do so. This project is all about Wikipedia, and so deserves a page in the Wikipedia mainspace. WWB (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- If you or any Wikipedia editor engaged in public relations wanted to write an essay from a Wikipedia editor standpoint, no one could possible object. It wouldn't matter what you say. You could talk about how you think p.r. people should behave, covering everything in this essay. The problem is that this is not an essay by you as an editor. It is a statement by external parties which are listed, with a solicitation for how to "join." Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Ad hominems. Discussion has ended. Hatting because it overwhelms the page.--v/r - TP 16:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Keep - fallacy that so called PR folks are inherently not community. This is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no policy justification for deletion. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I said specifically that PR people could write essays as editors with perfect validity, but that a statement by p.r. firms is objectionable.
Why are you misrepresenting my position?Coretheapple (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Oh, you signed the statement. I didn't know, and you didn't disclose your COI. Silly question. Coretheapple (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I said specifically that PR people could write essays as editors with perfect validity, but that a statement by p.r. firms is objectionable.
- Keep—I am a signatory and admittedly biased, but I think it's far preferable to have this statement hosted by Wikipedia, where transparency is paramount, than on a third-party site. It's the most neutral and collaborative space for PR reps participating on Wikipedia to state their intentions, which in my mind aligns with Wikipedia's own goals to keep COI interactions transparent and collaborative. Keeping the statement on Wikipedia ensures it is as visible as possible to the Wikipedia community. Nor is it coming from Wikipedia outsiders: all the signatories have their own Wikipedia accounts and many of us participate actively in the community, both as part of our work and outside it. I also think this statement is more than a stagnant press release. It is meant to be a guideline for appropriate on-wiki behavior for PR reps. Therefore, it makes sense for it to be hosted on Wikipedia as an ongoing reference, both for PR reps who want guidance for how to behave and for other editors wanting to understand the structures by which we're trying to abide. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as WWB clearly pointed out, this page conforms with every bit of WP:ESSAYPAGES, and is clearly marked with (as recommended) an essay template at the top. You may not like the content or the people involved, and that's fine. But that's not a reason to delete it. FWIW I am not involved with this effort, I don't work for a PR firm. --Krelnik (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep for all of the reasons above and the standpoint of sheer inconsistency. When I founded CREWE and decided to host that discussion on Facebook, I caught a ton of grief for creating an "off-wiki" group about Wikipedia. (Rationale: I needed to be where PR people were in order to make sure that the message of ethical Wikipedia engagement was in the same range-of-motion as that audience's other activities.) Now we're discussing an essay, on-wiki, by PR folks, discussing a very Wikipedia-compatible way for PR folks to participate. This results in a recommendation for deletion years after the fact? No, definitely keep. -- Philgomes (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Whoever closes this MfD needs to look carefully at which of the responding editors are participants in this essay project. This essay is pure WP:NOT. You don't get a free pass by putting an essay template at the top. This is not really the views of a small number of editors. It is the views of an outside organization whose members became editors in order to be able to say that this is an essay representing the views of some members of the editing community. That said, another option would be to userfy the page, instead of having it in WP: space. I don't buy the argument that by having it here instead of at an external site, it makes it easier to keep track of. That's what external links sections are for. I could see a case for a different essay, written from an actual Wikipedia perspective, that summarizes what this essay addresses, and assesses, critically, what it says, from a Wikipedia perspective, while having the existing essay move either into user space or externally. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- After reading subsequent discussion, I want to update what I said originally. I still do not believe that the page should simply remain as is. But after thinking about this carefully, I believe that the idea to change it into something along the lines of WP:Wikiproject Paid Editing is an excellent solution, and entirely appropriate. So my first choice now would be to (1) move to user space for the time being, and (2) work it up into a collaborative project resembling WikiProjects. But if there is not consensus to do those things, then I would still say delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: Can you elaborate some on the "wikiproject" idea, perhaps on the talk page? I don't understand what that would entail. Coretheapple (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I was thinking of the discussion just below, of Jytdog's suggestion of the project. It's not like I have extensive details in mind, but it seems to me that, although the purpose does not fit well in the form of an essay, it fits very well as a group of editors working together towards a common goal. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Given the differing priorities (many editors would seek to use the project to eliminate paid editing, while others would use it to grease the wheels) I can't see a consensus developing. And certainly this page can't be an incubator for such an idea; there's not a sufficient breadth of participation in an MfD. Coretheapple (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- That's why I said to userfy first – WP:There is no deadline. But having a project where more editors would join, with differing opinions, would actually be a healthy thing: one could argue that the essay, as it is now, suffers from homogeneity of input. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Given the differing priorities (many editors would seek to use the project to eliminate paid editing, while others would use it to grease the wheels) I can't see a consensus developing. And certainly this page can't be an incubator for such an idea; there's not a sufficient breadth of participation in an MfD. Coretheapple (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I was thinking of the discussion just below, of Jytdog's suggestion of the project. It's not like I have extensive details in mind, but it seems to me that, although the purpose does not fit well in the form of an essay, it fits very well as a group of editors working together towards a common goal. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: Can you elaborate some on the "wikiproject" idea, perhaps on the talk page? I don't understand what that would entail. Coretheapple (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. This is one of the most egregious cases of IDONTLIKEIT I've seen. I am no fan of paid editing, I've been an active unpaid volunteer on en.wp for 13 years, and I have nothing to do with this agreement. In the past I've opined on-wiki that paid editing should be completely banned. But the community hasn't banned it yet, so paid editors are part of the community and have a right to post an essay just like any other member of the community. If you are against paid editing, edit warring over an essay isn't going to win this war for you. As long as paid editing is allowed, there needs to be a path for policy compliance for paid editors, so it is in the best interests of the entire community, not just those editors, to openly discuss on-wiki best practices regarding policy compliance and to publicize a significant collective effort towards that end. Drop the stick, this is ridiculous. Gamaliel (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- umm, this is a bit awkward that I need to say this, but User:WWB and User:Fuzheado please declare your relationship with any of the companies that have signed on (or any other relevant interest) as User:MaryGaulke did, who shows more and more that she understand WP's culture as well as its policies and guidelines, and as User:Philgomes kind of did. If any other signatories or otherwise-related users !vote here, please declare your connection. People who are not related don't have to declare that - it is what we assume.. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. I am the founder of Beutler Ink, which has has consulted with <10 of these firms at various times in recent years, some before the statement and some since, and not always about Wikipedia. As stated above in my original !vote: I am the originator of this effort. The initial meeting was my idea, which I then organized. I was not paid for it nor, was I subsidized by anyone. After what was generally seen as a successful conversation, I wrote the first draft of the statement, and all initial signatories gave feedback. Since then I have been active seeking more firms to join, and culling those whose haven’t maintained a point of contact. In that sense I have a relationship with all of them, but the statement remains an independent effort. WWB (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Ad hominems. Discussion has ended. Hatting because it overwhelms the page.--v/r - TP 16:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Comment. I am thinking about this. Wikipedia:Project namespace has a lot of various kinds of things in it. See for example Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing. I agree that this being an "essay" is not really appropriate but that is what the WMF "statement" is as well. One thing I have considering for a while, is whether there should be a WP:Wikiproject Paid Editing or the like (the name would be one of the hardest things) -- a sort of guild of paid editors within WP that would actually a) create and maintain best practices consistent with the policies and guidelines (per this statement); b) help educate new PR people who show up so we wouldn't have to spend so much time doing that; and c) of course be careful as hell to avoid becoming a lobbying group itself and to avoid doing bad things like peer reviewing each other's's proposed articles and content. So I would almost want to see this moved to a new WikiProject. I wasn't really ready to propose that yet, but this seems as good a time and place as any. So keep for now until we figure out what is most appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- When I made my comment above, I had been thinking about that same WMF statement. My own take on it is that a statement from WMF is from within the Wikimedia projects, whereas this statement, although presented within the project, is fundamentally different because it really is on behalf of organizations that are separate from the Wikimedia projects. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Tectonic drift, way off topic. Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I hear you on that Tryptofish. Another example is WP:GLAM which has its way of welcoming other knowledge-generating and curating institutions that are otherwise outside the WMF; another is the entire education program, which of course welcomes schools which are outside the WMF. Each comes with its own interesting set of COI issues that people are often unwilling to address, but they can create situations that are just as disruptive and thorny as those created by the PR industry. I know that some folks view the presence of PR people in WP as pollution (and to the extent that they cannot pull their heads out of their own butts and keep writing things like
what's wrong with advocating--not COI editing, but advocating--for a client's interest on Wikipedia so long as that relationship is disclosed and takes place in forums where that is acceptable?
(diff) and doing (self)-destructive things that anger us more, like the Burger King debacle -- "they" are) but to the extent that this essay is an (I think authentic) effort by some members of the PR industry to really come inside the big WMF tent, they have a place at the table - in other words, they deserve some project space. What kind of project space, and how that project space is framed and managed does matter, as I noted above. Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)- Yes, and I partly changed my position above. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I hear you on that Tryptofish. Another example is WP:GLAM which has its way of welcoming other knowledge-generating and curating institutions that are otherwise outside the WMF; another is the entire education program, which of course welcomes schools which are outside the WMF. Each comes with its own interesting set of COI issues that people are often unwilling to address, but they can create situations that are just as disruptive and thorny as those created by the PR industry. I know that some folks view the presence of PR people in WP as pollution (and to the extent that they cannot pull their heads out of their own butts and keep writing things like
- I love the idea of a WikiProject Paid Editing or a WikiProject COI Editing. Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- At this point, we're straying a bit far afield of an MfD discussion, but I like the direction of this thought as well. Maybe not even a whole separate WikiProject, but a counterpart to the WP:COI/Noticeboard: a WP:COI/Help desk. WWB (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- COIN is for editors who have an WP:APPARENTCOI but are not responsive or are denying any COI. The proposed Wikiproject could not be any kind of counterpart to COIN. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sure it could. As you note, COI/N is a board subsidiary to WP:COI, to deal with those who seem to not be disclosing their COI or following the rules. There's no reason why a COI/HD could not be a similar board, to assess and respond to requests from those who do. WWB (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- COIN is for editors who have an WP:APPARENTCOI but are not responsive or are denying any COI. The proposed Wikiproject could not be any kind of counterpart to COIN. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- At this point, we're straying a bit far afield of an MfD discussion, but I like the direction of this thought as well. Maybe not even a whole separate WikiProject, but a counterpart to the WP:COI/Noticeboard: a WP:COI/Help desk. WWB (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I too have strong misgivings about using WP space to apparently legitimize commercial editing. But that is something that is a reality and after a great deal of thought I think this editor group should be allowed to discuss their existence here, i.e. keep the statement. This addition [2] helps to show that it has some external note and isn't entirely self-serving. The section "how to join" with off-wiki links, though, seems a bit ... well, not entirely in the Wikipedia spirit. It might be appropriate to trim it back to less promotional tone, and retain some of the group's own statements in something like Wikisource. - Bri (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Leaning delete-- is this page a Wikipedia Project or is this an essay? If it's a project, the extensive "media coverage" section is not appropriate. If it's an essay, then "how to join" sections are not appropriate. If this is a space to house the statement, then I don't see the point. Thus, due to lack of clarity for what the purpose is, I'm voting tentative "delete" for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - the page is neither fish, nor foul. Not an essay, not a Wikiproject. If it was an essay, other editors could edit it freely. If it was a Wikiproject, other editors could join (perhaps listed as individuals rather than companies), and the project would actually do something that would appear to benefit Wikipedia, rather than just make some PR firms look good.
- I don't object to this mostly being a stale press release by PR firms. But just pare it down to that and leave it as an essay; or
- actually do something to benefit Wikipedia, allow non-industry members, and learn our rules, e.g. WP:NOTADVOCATE
- I'm not surprised by the self-congratulatory press clippings included. I would have doubts that these were real PR people if the clippings weren't included.
- But I should say something nice about this page. I was invited to participate in the Donovan House meeting and the inviter said something like "this is our chance to have paid and non-paid editors working together for their mutual betterment." Unfortunately, I was not very gracious in my reply which was approx. "I think paid editing is antithetical to Wikipedia's goals. I have no intention of working with PR people who are tearing down Wikipedia and would prefer that they were totally banned from Wikipedia." The inviter responded "Could you be more specific?"
- My point is the PR folks often totally miss the point, especially if it goes against their self-interest. And the main point is that Wikipedia is not here to benefit their companies or clients. We're here to build a NPOV encyclopedia.
- That said, I was pleasantly surprised when this declaration came out. It moved the paid editing discussion forward (at that time). Can you figure out a way to make this essay/project move the encyclopedia forward now?
- If not, then delete.
- BTW, I invite anybody interested to sign the open letter at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard open letter. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I placed my own comments on that page, as I found part of the "open letter" to not represent what I consider to be a reasonable position. Collect (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- If self-identified public relations practitioners sign that letter I think it would be a big step forward. Coretheapple (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I considered, but had issues with it, and anyway I think it had been sent before I could weigh in. My $.02 here. WWB (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I believe it's still gathering sigs. Not too late. Anyway, these kinds of side discussions should not take place here. Coretheapple (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I considered, but had issues with it, and anyway I think it had been sent before I could weigh in. My $.02 here. WWB (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- If self-identified public relations practitioners sign that letter I think it would be a big step forward. Coretheapple (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I placed my own comments on that page, as I found part of the "open letter" to not represent what I consider to be a reasonable position. Collect (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Fair comment. Related to Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Essays are not "by the Wikipedia community" but simply, in some reasonable manner, related to Wikipedia. This leaps that bar. Collect (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- By that logic, any external party or parties that have something to say can simply post a "statement" on Wikipedia as long as they have editors on their payroll. Preventing such abuse of Wikipedia space is the whole purpose of WP:NOT. Coretheapple (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nice Slippery slope fallacy you have there. Also see Parade of horribles#As a rhetorical device. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not a fallacy at all. There is nothing to prevent this same approach by any outside group wanting to throw their weight around Wikipedia as much as the PR profession does. Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- It most certainly is an example of the slippery slope fallacy (you have not established that decisions made at this MfD will somehow force the same decisions to be made at future MfDs for completely different pages), and there certainly is is something to to prevent this same approach by any outside group wanting to throw their weight around Wikipedia. It is called "Miscellany for deletion". You need to argue about whether or not to delete the actual page that was nominated, not some future pages that haven't been written yet. We will MfD those future pages as appropriate when they come, and if they are as bad as you describe, the MfDs will pass. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not a fallacy at all. There is nothing to prevent this same approach by any outside group wanting to throw their weight around Wikipedia as much as the PR profession does. Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nice Slippery slope fallacy you have there. Also see Parade of horribles#As a rhetorical device. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- By that logic, any external party or parties that have something to say can simply post a "statement" on Wikipedia as long as they have editors on their payroll. Preventing such abuse of Wikipedia space is the whole purpose of WP:NOT. Coretheapple (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. These guys have made a public statement of their intention to behave honestly. It should be kept on record. It may be useful. Maproom (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly keep. This isn't just some forum put on by random PR firms and shoehorned onto Wikipedia. This was an engagement between highly influential Wikipedians and PR firms trying to come to an agreement on how to treat Wikipedia with some level of ethics - led by Wikipedians. It's relevant to Wikipedia. I suspect that its nomination is based in the fact that it upsets the narrative that's been spread on Wikipedia_talk:COI.--v/r - TP 22:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, and I advise Tryptofish to carefully read WP:1AM and follow the advice found there. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'll follow up on that with you at your user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as honest and open communications should not be deleted out of what could be pique. →StaniStani 03:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, as open dialog and discussion is what's needed here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. As someone who does a lot of work dealing with COI problems, I don't object to the other side having a position paper on Wikipedia. I don't agree with much of their position, but an essay outside of mainspace is harmless. I have an essay on that myself, at Wikipedia:Hints on dealing with conflict of interest problems.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagle (talk • contribs)
- Keep. It's a rational statement endorsed by responsible people. Personally, I would prefer to absolutely ban paid editing, but while it exists we must try to understand it; this is a very helpful statement of an important point of view about it. That I do not share it is relevant: I have much more need to understand those whose POV I do not share, than those I do. These days, like some of us commenting here, most of my work here is removing material from paid and other promotional editors that does not meet our standards, and it is necessary for us to keep in mind the views of others in order to make the necessary distinctions. (And it has already proven to be very helpful when dealing with edits by some of the people who endorsed it that may not actually meet our policies.) DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep on second thoughts; worthwhile as having a record of what the PR community considers a best practice. But remove the press coverage section; anything 3rd party and independent can be used on the CREWE page: Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Seems useful and worth keeping around. Sam Walton (talk) 00:49, 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.