Talk:McLaughlin & Harvey

This page is promo
The text is copied directly from the company's advertising website. It is utterly unsourced to any reliable source that would connote notability, it is written clearly as promotion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Do not delete
Please advise me on what I can do to fix the page, I realise that all the information found on this page is straight from the companys website. The History is ok I hope, I realise the Divisions Section is more of a promo. If you agree you can remove the divisions section. Please do not delete the page remove sections you feel are only there to promote the company and edit to suit Wikipedia better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.watterson2 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the things you can do to discourage deletion is to stop deleting the tags - they are there to encourage other editors to address the problems with the article. (Having said that, don't be surprised if the article is deleted, as many would consider this article as meeting the WP:SPEEDY deletion criteria for being blatant advertising.) At this point the page bears no evidence that the company should have a Wikipedia page, in that the only source of information is the company itself; that does not show importance. From a point-of-view situation, even the history is vastly probematic, burdened with unsourced paeans to the greatness of the founders, how they were "Armed with character, determination", "a large-hearted generosity", and so forth.
 * I have added to your talk page a Welcome entry - included in there are links as a guide to editing Wikipedia. In this case, you should pay particular attention to The Five Pillars, Neutral Point of View, Conflict of interest, and Notability. Those pages are laden with helpful information about what is needed and expected in the creation and editing of such articles. Feel free to post a message on my talk page if you want any more input. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyway the banner at the top of the page can be moved to the bottem, i realise that it is there for other users to see and help fix and update the page. comment added by M.watterson2 (talk• contribs) 08:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the proper standard place for the banners is at the top of the article. I have restored it to that position. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Issue: It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since June 2011. Fix: I have updated the page with links to other Wikipedia articles and i have also fixed the reference links which pointed to the History and Division pages on the McLaughlin and Harvey website.

Can someone please review the page and see if any other changes need to be made so that the banner can be removed from the top of the page. comment added by M.watterson2 (talk• contribs) 17:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While external links and wikilinks are good things and contribute to the quality of an article, they are not references or sources. As such, they neither grant the impartiality that is expected to come from third-party sources nor do they indicate what is important to the larger world, and thus needed in the encyclopedia. You have improved the article, just not in ways that address the banner you're concerned about. "Sources" are where the information in the article comes from, and "references" are where the information in the article can be verified (both are commonly listed in the References section.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added some references I hope will help the page meet the requirements. The reason there are a lack of references is because there are very little if any. I have searched the web for references to back up the informatin in the history but there is none. This is also why the one man source is the McLaughlin and Harvey website has it is the only place that provides details about McLaughlin and Havery, though I realise that it does not count as 3rd party, but there are no other 3rd party references.

TAG: Its neutrality is disputed
I feel this is no longer an issue as the page just explains a very brief history of the company with a few 3rd party refences to backup the information, because of this i feel the article is fair and not bias. I realise that there arent alot of references but I have searched multiple times online and this is all i could find.

TAG: It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter
I realise that this is an issue, but the article has been edited and cut down by plenty of users since I first created it. Also I have referenced the information which shows i did not write it myself. If the page still has issues, I feel at this stage it will never be right and the banner will be there for a long time, because of this I think it would be better to delete the page as the company do not wish for clients to see this page with the banner, they would rather there was no page., if this is the case i will add the delete tag to the top of it. Any further advise would be much appreciated thanks. comment added by M.watterson2 (talk• contribs) 12:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Addressing your various edits:


 * The argument that there have been plenty of users who have cut down the article fails, because only one user did anything besides technical edits, and that's the same editor who flagged the conflicts: me.
 * The argument that you have referenced the information does not remove it from conflict of interest, particularly since the source you referenced has a clear conflict of interest.
 * Given the conflict of interest and the source being used, it is hard to assume that the article is now neutral, despite the stripping away of the puffery. Were I to write the article on myself, I would likely include material about any critical acclaim I may gain, and forgo mentioning the fact that I like to eat raw babies with catsup. The choice of material would make that non-neutral.
 * If you use the Proposed deletion process, I will likely not object (I reserve the right to change my mind, of course), but do not be surprised if others do. The reason you are giving for deletion, that the corporate subject of the article would prefer it deleted, is not a sound reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not Facebook. It is not here so that those who choose to do so can use it to promote themselves. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McLaughlin & Harvey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/the-construction-index-news/McLaughlin-Harvey-wins-pound-50m-Loch-Ryan-port-contract
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101025052816/http://www.vaughan-group.co.uk/news/rvh_2b__critical_care_unit_23.0m_mechanical_services.php to http://www.vaughan-group.co.uk/news/rvh_2b__critical_care_unit_23.0m_mechanical_services.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316172846/http://www.fasttrack.co.uk/fasttrack/leagues/dbDetails.asp?siteID=5&compID=1921&yr=2006 to http://www.fasttrack.co.uk/fasttrack/leagues/dbDetails.asp?siteID=5&compID=1921&yr=2006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)