Talk:Sinclair Knight Merz

Notice of COI
I hereby declare that I as a user have a conflict of interest in this article. I am an employee of Sinclair Knight Merz. I created the text of the original article. In attempting to avoid COI in creating the article I first asked for help via the [| Help Desk] of November 27 2007. In this request, I was seeking help in creating / publishing an NPOV article about the company. The firm had already been linked to several times in other Wiki articles (not by me). I was up-front about disclosing my COI and wanted to engage assistance in making sure I was not breaking any rules.

I created a dummy article via my Talk page for other Wikipedians to offer their advice. The general consensus of that Help Desk discussion was that the article was OK in terms of NPOV but needed some citation. That I did. There was also suggestion that I try and enlist help off the WikiProject Engineering page. I posted there on 28 November but had no response.

I then posted on the [Help Desk] of 17 December 2007 asking for additional help in making sure I was doing the right thing. Via this request, the page was published/moved from my talk page to its own article page.

My immediate intentions are to have a trawl through Wikipedia and make sure that any current mentions of the company are properly directed to this page.

I hope other users will respect all that I have done to avoid COI and abuse/advertising issues. I am a regular private user of Wikipedia and I don't want to resort to sock-puppets to get the article posted. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sinclair knight merz logo.jpg
Image:Sinclair knight merz logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

End of COI
As of 16 October 2008 I am no longer an employee of Sinclair Knight Merz. --Mat Hardy (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to history of SKM as Sinclair Knight
I was surprised to read that there's nothing about SKM's controversial work under their former guise of Sinclair Knight Partners. A couple of examples of SK's work was examined in an episode of ABC's "Four Corners" program first screened in 1989. It was called "Navy Blues" and SK's work in preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the Royal Australian Navy's proposed move to a new base at Jervis Bay, NSW. SK were criticised in the program for intentionally downplaying the heritage value of the area to local Aboriginal groups amongst other things — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximmm99 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for removing prod
I have deprodded this article without updating it, as it was approaching the deadline for when it would become eligible for summary deletion. I do not have the time to do a full search for sources, but in the section immediately above an IP user has highlighted coverage dating back to 1999. A cursory search found some stories such as a profile from a time before the company was sold, an interview with the founders, a corruption issue with the World Bank, and coverage of the corruption settlement in trade publications and The Wall St Journal (although it's a blog section). There is also some strange editing history in the article, including entire section blanking in 2011, which deserves further investigation. In summary, this was a very large Australian company, as recognizable by the $1.3 billion price tag on its sale. My gut tells me that there must be more sources available to prove the notability of such a large company, with a history dating 50+ years. If I am wrong and the article is taken to AFD, I would say that at the very least, a redirect to the purchaser Jacobs Engineering Group would be in order. If I cause a headache by taking this course, I offer my apologies in advance to the nominator, but I'm taking this action in good faith. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, the coverage you found and argued for here seems sufficient to warrant a keep. Good work! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)