Talk:Cindy Eckert

Untitled
I have a hard time understanding why a female entrepreneur with exits of over a billion dollars and with major media coverage was deemed not "notable". I'd strongly urge reconsideration of this page, which seems to me to be well-cited and an obviously notable subject. LillianJacobs72 (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
So, it turns out that all four substantial contributors to this page – Carlyoconnor, PWZ16, Tory Kastleberg and LillianJacobs72 – are sockpuppets of Tbenzinger. As I understand it, the page is not eligible as WP:CSD G5 because the article creation predates the sockpuppetry block. Think it's also a pretty safe guess that this is undeclared paid editing in violation of our terms of use.

So what should be done? , what are your thoughts? I've already moved this to draft space once, and I can't really think of anything better to do with it this time around. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm a strong believer in WP:IAR. This seems like an article the encyclopedia should have; the subject has been covered by Fortune, New York (magazine), and The New York Times, multiple times, she's been interviewed by National Public Radio, etc. If it's undeclared paid editing, it's at least gone through the Articles for Creation process, which is the main thing we have about WP:COI. The Public Speaking section seems like something we can live without, and it is begging for someone to add something about Whitehead's role in the non-negligible criticism that Addyi got, but neither of those are reasons to delete the article. I'll remove the PS section, but I think the article itself should stay. --GRuban (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to me too that she is probably notable. Will you remove all the sockpuppet/UPE content and write a new page? I'm afraid I have not nearly enough interest in the topic to contribute to that undertaking. My take: we don't keep content by sockpuppets, and we can't keep content created in violation of the terms of use. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Where's that written? --GRuban (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Upon review of this content, and this Talk page conversation from over a year ago, I'd tend to agree with GRuban and wonder what it is about this page that warrants a neutrality warning. It appears factual and properly cited. I am leaning towards removing the Public Speaking section and adding additional article links to improve context. Quickcrafty8 (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
At least one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting request edit (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request. Requests that are unduly long, or are not supported by independent reliable sources, are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)