This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives articles
This article states that this building society is the only building society or bank with its headquarters in West Wales. As West Wales is an area with no political recognition and its borders are ill-defined, some consider Swansea to be in West Wales, whereas others consider it to be in South Wales. Therefore it is entirely the POV of the building society that the town is in West Wales. However User:Pondle is reverting my removal of this. Should this therefore be removed? Welshleprechaun 22:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pondle notes that the "West Wales" is sourced to the building society's own website. That gives us a clear starting point for discussion: WP:SELFPUB. The question about the building society's own status then rests on the following five questions:
1. the material is not unduly self-serving; Doesn't seem to be to me.
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or entities); I don't see South vs. West West wales as being a big deal here, but I could be wrong.
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; It doesn't really seem to violate this, unless the building society is trying to somehow rewrite geography.
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; This hasn't been challenged by either editor.
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. And here, the issue fails. As I see it, the entire article is sourced to only the building society's own website, which is problematic. Are there any independent, reliable sources which deal with it?
On the other hand, if we leave that dispute alone, would it be better to preface the claims with something like "According to the building society's website..." and then we're clear that Wikipedia is repeating claims, not making them on our own. What do you both think of such a wording? Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its so bad I am very tempted to nom it for deletion as promotional rather than encyclopedic as [1] archive search seems rather trivial mentions as stuff as far as sources. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A simple Google search reveals no significant, even slight significant, coverage of the firm by third parties, just directory listings. I shall nominate this for deletion. Welshleprechaun 23:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the original RfC is concerned, I'd agree with Jclemens; it's not a particularly outrageous or misleading claim, and I think it's sufficient to prefix the claim with "According to..." or something like that.
There are several local news articles on the Building Society - how it profited from the Icelandic crash[2], had a record year in 2009[3] and won an award the same year.[4]--Pondle (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that looks a lot better now. Welshleprechaun 07:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
