Talk:Crest Nicholson

Notability

• Someone keeps removing the customer comments and critisisms. If you are going to do this please provide a reason to ensure this isn't an attempt by the company to remove information which may show them in a negative light. Al Sutton
• It wasn't me, but while I agree that the criticism of the company should be glossed over, this article is pretty badly written at the moment. It rambles and doesn't live up to the NPOV policy for wikipedia. I don't have the time to correct it either way. I wonder if a separate article on criticisms of volume UK housebuilders might be a good idea, as it is always the same issues that come up.Andehandehandeh (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm happy to do the work improving the page, but some of the critisisms are direct entries by users, therefore there isn't much that can be done without risking acusations of altering direct quotes. In the mean time we should keep the critisisms so that the article provides as much information about the company as possible. Al Sutton
  • I disagree about the customer comments section and have removed it as they count as original research and are definitely against wikipedia policy [1]. The criticisms section is more of a grey area I think, but the unreferenced claims should definitely be removed if sources can't be found for these.Andehandehandeh (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have personal experience of the last two and will make the appropriate documentation available online in the next week.Al Sutton —Preceding comment was added at 13:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Following on from my last comment, making the documentation for the delays claim would involve publishing letters between Crest and Myself which contain personal information I would prefer not to place on Wikipedia. If you wish to remove it then that is you choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.sutton (talk • contribs) 07:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• On Neutality : I beleive that having a critisms section contributes towards a fair and balanced picture of the company to be built up. If there are users who wish to add positive comments then this would be welcomed because I beleive that adding positive and negative comments about any entity adds to the readers ability to get an unbiased rounded opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.sutton (talk • contribs) 06:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus when this issue arose with Persimmon was (to quote Talk:Persimmon plc) "Please note that Wikipedia was not a site set up with the intention of satisfying the problems customers have with those appearing on it. It is considered usual procedure that articles of the same type, companies in the same industry or governing body are represented in the same manner."; To this end, my interpretation is that the article should be about the company -- If it receives notable criticism, then maybe this should be revisited, but as it stands a lot of the sources lack verifiability and border on original research; please remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox -- Ratarsed (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed two items where citations were requested and could be seen as minor one-offs. In the item which states a citation is needed in relation to the sales employees the only source of verification would be phone Crest Nicholson and request details of the employees, should a reference including Crests phone number be included? A.Sutton

I almost see this as a trivia section (apologies to those affected by the individual incidents), and that they should be removed if they cannot be generalised (in the case of a systematic failing, if they were always neglecting to do soil contamination survey, for example) or cited in more reliable sources (so if there was a feature on Crest Nicholson BBC Watchdog, or an article covering a neglect for the feelings of local residents by Crest during planning in a national newspaper, or similar) -- the trading standards investigation comes across in the manner I'm thinking. It's almost as if the incidents should only really be mentioned if they have shaped the company in some way or are notable in their own right (multiple independent reliable sources) -- Ratarsed (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Crest nicholson built on the pitwines site in poole dorset knowing full well that the land there was biologically unsound for development namely there used to be a petroleum distillery there, the soil is contaminated with chemicals from this namely naphtas see elsewhere in the wiki for information on this group of chemicals. They even went to the lengths of putting down a teram barrier sheet (which is porous anyway)and importing large quantites of soil from elsewhere in dorset and dumping it on top of the sheet they then paid off a lab to take soil samples from the area and say that it was safe for building although this happened after major development had taken place thier actions alone prove they are guilty because if there was no problem then why go to lengths which i mentioned earlier if there was infact no problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.119.132 (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Expect to see more criticism. GP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralPig (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• CM Master Logo Blue RGB.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)