4 ms·

The reasoning can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Issuer_Identification_Numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

The reasoning can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Issuer_Identification_Numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

vonklaus 10y ago
The reasons states were essentially: - Not Comprehensive - Not wholly accurate - Difficult to keep updated - Not all sourced/vergiable or unsourced Which is totally fair, except that would apply to a lot of articles...
- razwall 10y ago
  The main reason given is that the article was original research. In other words, it was not just unsourced, but fundamentally unsourceable. There is nowhere an editor can go to reliably determine whether the entries in the list are correct (at least, not to the knowledge of anyone who participated in the deletion discussion). That puts it well outside the bounds of Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary information source that only summarizes information from other sources.
swayvil 10y ago
Is it reasoning or is it mere justification? Hard to tell. This is the protective wall around the Wikipedia editor's kingdom.
- Pyxl101 10y ago
  > This list is essentially unsourced and because of the nature of these numbers being unpublished, will always be original research. Does not seem to be a notable list. Seems like pretty good reasoning to me. The list is unsourced and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Plus it's not a notable topic, something I'd also agree with. Perhaps there ought to be a "wiki facts" website where such material could be published and editors could attempt to ascertain its validity and publish any facts that can be confirmed, even if not with typical encyclopedic quality sources.
  - swayvil 10y ago
    You miss my point. You offered a rationale. But how exactly is it being used? 2 options : (A) It is being used to arrive at a conclusion (B) It is being used to justify a conclusion.

The reasoning can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Issuer_Identification_Numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

vonklaus 10y ago

The reasons states were essentially: - Not Comprehensive - Not wholly accurate - Difficult to keep updated - Not all sourced/vergiable or unsourced Which is totally fair, except that would apply to a lot of articles...

razwall 10y ago
The main reason given is that the article was original research. In other words, it was not just unsourced, but fundamentally unsourceable. There is nowhere an editor can go to reliably determine whether the entries in the list are correct (at least, not to the knowledge of anyone who participated in the deletion discussion). That puts it well outside the bounds of Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary information source that only summarizes information from other sources.

swayvil 10y ago

Is it reasoning or is it mere justification? Hard to tell. This is the protective wall around the Wikipedia editor's kingdom.

Pyxl101 10y ago
> This list is essentially unsourced and because of the nature of these numbers being unpublished, will always be original research. Does not seem to be a notable list. Seems like pretty good reasoning to me. The list is unsourced and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Plus it's not a notable topic, something I'd also agree with. Perhaps there ought to be a "wiki facts" website where such material could be published and editors could attempt to ascertain its validity and publish any facts that can be confirmed, even if not with typical encyclopedic quality sources.
- swayvil 10y ago
  You miss my point. You offered a rationale. But how exactly is it being used? 2 options : (A) It is being used to arrive at a conclusion (B) It is being used to justify a conclusion.