Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bank Identification Numbers

{{ns:0|T}}

:{{la|List of Bank Identification Numbers}} ([{{fullurl:List of Bank Identification Numbers|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bank Identification Numbers}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

The whole article is full of unverified original research--people add one or two cards at a time, it seems, with no sources. This makes me believe they look at their own credit card(s), see them not listed, then list them themselves. This article is useful, but largely unverifiable. Sydius (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:OR, WP:NOTE, WP:RS. I'm also not really sure what the point of the article is either! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

: The list can be useful to organizations who wish to know from which bank a card has been issued as a part of fraud prevention (IE, if the card was issued by a bank in the United States, but the IP address's country is thought to be Russia, it might be a case of fraud). --Sydius (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

::Sure... but be honest, if you were looking for that information would you look in an encyclopedia? ;-) -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Hah, actually, it's how I found it--I wanted exactly what this list could provide. I can't trust it without sources, though; not to mention, it's a bit messy and I do agree that it is out of place in encyclopedia. My primary concern, though, is all the original research/lack of sources. --Sydius (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

::::The trouble is it's useful isn't a valid criteria for inclusion without reliable sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - A source was added, http://www.iinvestigate.net/secure/creditcard.shtml, but I don't think this is a reliable source. --Sydius (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Lists are bad enough, but a list of numbers seems especially out of place in an encyclopedia. There must be some other website that provides this information. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - passes WP:NOTE, WP:NPOV, WP:V. The argument to keep it is that this information does not appear to be compliled by a more authorative source or otherwise readily accessible. The recently added citation is a partial replacement at best. Neither my bank or VISA provide a similar list. This information constitutes a valuable fraud prevention tool, allowing a merchant to identify which bank needs to be contacted for timely transaction inquiries.
  The information is verifiable (WP:V) either on the bank's website or by phoning the bank directly. The information is neutral (WP:NPOV). And it passes (teniously) WP:NOTE. The article would be stronger and more authoritative if sources were cited. But it's positive utility argues that we should keep it unless a more authoritative source can replace it or significant harm can be argued. A disclaimer regarding citations continues to be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iredato (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

: Unless we can provide good citations, though, I think it fails to meet the requirements for a Wikipedia article, no matter how useful (and I agree that it is invaluable) it may be. Perhaps it would be more appropriately listed someplace else, with a link at the bottom of the credit card number page. --Sydius (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

::A link at the bottom of the credit card number page would be a reasonable alternative if this article is voted to not meet Wikipedia standards. -- iredato

• Delete subject fails our notability criteria. not to mention that it isn't remotely an encyclopedic subject. Information isn't remotely cited to reliable 3rd party sources (or any at all for that matter). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Thinking that a list of numbers are "out of place in an encyclopedia" is incorrect. See List of prime numbers. I feel that the "An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers" portion of WP:ITSUSEFUL is satisfied enough to keep it around. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Regardless of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS prime numbers are at least marginally notable whereas this list has no such claim. Prime numbers will always and forever be the same. The numbers on this list could/probably have/and probably will again change. Information is already suitably covered in an encyclopedic manner here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::Prime numbers would be notable to some, as would this list of numbers. Anyone more connected to banking than to Pure Math would consider the List of Primes marginally notable (WP:WHOCARES). Where are you getting the information that these numbers "could/probably have/and probably will again change"? I would take a great interest in why my bank would be changing any of my numbers. Please read the sentence that preceeds the chart of numbers on the page you mention. It is not a complete listing. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:They aren't your numbers it's a reference number. I'm guessing that there is a limited supply of 6 digit numbers in the world (and that when this thing first came into effect it was primarily the first 4 that were important and that as the banking world evolved (and continues to evolve) that reference numbers and style of references will continue to evolve along with them.Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unfortunately despite that this is a very useful list, it fails WP:NOR, WP:LC, and various other guidelines, policies, and essays. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A useful list that has yet to be fully sourced. To think that this information is not verifyable would say the banking system operates on an ad hoc basis--not likely. I personally don't know how accurate this data is, but I would bet my house its verifiable.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

: But is it verifiable from sources we can list? Sure, you can call the banks, but that'd be original research. I've been searching for reliable sources, but have had great difficulty in finding any (I searched my own bank web site as well as several others and found nothing). Not only that, but these are not mentioned in any reliable third-party source (IE, not the banks themselves) that I can find, disqualifying them for notability. --Sydius (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This list is uncontroversial and passes WP:SPS, unless the cards are counterfeit their numbers are published/issued by the banks. Each card is a reliable source for its BIN number. This list ultimately is a trade secret of the American Bankers Association since they issue the numbers and for security through obscurity, don't publish the list to the public (ISO_7812#Issuer_Identifier_Number). WP is WP:NOTCENSORED, so there should be no problems documenting a trade secret or something confidential. I also say, even with the uncompletability of the list, this list does serve a security purpose (what cards are from what countries, what brands, debit/credit/prepaid/low credit limit) per User:Iredato's comment, so this is an application of WP:IAR. Looking at the edit history of this list, its amazing what WP system/community can do. There are anon editors with IP lookups of financial companies User_talk:216.95.236.3, exactly what this list needs. If there are concerns about sources from anon editors, put a wikitext comment at the top of each section to remind editors to source their entires. Uploading an censored image of the card and putting a link to it in a footnote is another possibility (webcite would be better though).Patcat88 (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

: I don't see how it meets the exception discussed in WP:SPS. Care to elaborate? --Sydius (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.