Comment: I am not making a formal recommendation to "keep" or "delete" for several reasons: First of all, I have participated in the CREWE Facebook group under my real name, Jim Heaphy, so I have a COI. (Coincidentally, this debate has motivated me to abandon any pretense of anonymity here on Wikipedia. I am who I am.) Secondly, I think that this is a borderline case, and the underlying debate is far more important than whether or not this article is kept. Finally, I said that I wouldn't on Jimbo's talk page.
I trust that the closing administrator will focus on comments about the notability of this specific topic and the quality of the sources that discuss it. This debate is not about the perfidy or virtue of PR people. Its not about what Jimbo thinks or has done. Its not about the deletionist versus inclusionist philosophies. It's not about whether it's possible in the abstract for a Facebook group to be notable. It's not about whether PR professionals (or anyone else who communicates with reporters and editors) can motivate the creation of reliable sources. It's not about WP:COOP or WP:PAIDWATCH. All of those are important subjects to discuss, but not as part of this specific deletion debate.
I endorse the comments above by Carrite, who wants the article deleted for now, and by DGG, who thinks it should be kept. Many others have been constructive here. There are many references, but for the most part, they all have problems and few can be described as fully reliable and independent sources giving significant coverage to this specific topic. All of us may have differing thresholds for quality of sources - I try to be a moderate.
I believe that the experienced Wikipedians participating in CREWE in recent months have conducted themselves, on balance, with integrity and forthrightness. I invite scrutiny and constructive criticism of my contributions both there and here. Thank you.