Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SWIFT codes

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of SWIFT codes

edit

Wikipedia is not a data dump. This is original data, and of no interest to anyone except people who are going to transfer some money. Those will get an up-to-date SWIFT code from their bank. Pilatus 17:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The list is neither complete nor authoritative. The December update to the printed SWIFT directory runs to sixteen pages, and that's just the changes. The full database is not available for public download from the authoritative source (the SWIFT BIC Database) -- this database with its lookup facility is already linked from the article on ISO 9362, the formal name for the standard. This vote is not on a full, authoritative list of codes, it's on a partial and manually-updated list which anybody needing a SWIFT code is unlikely to use as they can look up the code for their bank free of charge from an authoritative source linked in the main article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or at best userify - unencyclopedic list and there are better ways of determining the info if you actually have a need to know (not trying to argue from authority but I have some SWIFT experience). ++Lar 23:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. SWIFT codes are useful, and most (US and Canadian) bank branches don't have a clue how to look them up. On the other hand, this list is woefully incomplete. Jamie 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment IMHO, Bank branches don't have a NEED to look them up, their SWIFT department should be doing it for them when there is a need to transfer funds (and people in that department already know the codes for their correspondent banks). it is my view that this list can never be 100% complete and accurate, and there are better sources for this information. The main SWIFT article should reference them and this list should be (at best) userified, again, IMHO. ++Lar 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact that something is useful does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia. Phone books, dictionaries, and thesauruses are all extremely useful, and all outside th realm of Wikipedia. The SWIFT list is fully available online, anyway, and it's linked to from ISO_9362 (and therefore SWIFT code). -- Dpark 14:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why expand? It is trivially easy to find a code from the linked source, which is (unlike Wikipedia) authoritative. If you were going to look up your bank's SWIFT code would you go to Wikipedia, to your bank's websiote, or to the SWIFT BIC database? Which is the odd one out here? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks pretty useful to me! Nfitz 04:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless you can be certain that the information will be transferred to the appropriate article for each bank. —Phil | Talk 07:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At least as useful as IATA airport codes, these are encyclopedic in my opinion. -- Marcika 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yet another one of those cases where we have argument by assertion that information is unencyclopaedic. Just not good enough, I'm afraid. If proponents of deletion can give a convincing argument that this information a) has no potential to be useful or b) belongs at one of the other Wiki sites, then we might have a good basis for a deletion discussion, but as it stands ... yawn, next! The potential for illegal use of this information is, pretty obviously, a big stinky red herring ... SP-KP 19:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list is functionally equivalent to a telephone directory. The existence and use of SWIFT codes is encyclopaedic, a mirror of a subset of the list (the full list runs to 16 pages of small print) on an arbitrary and unstated date is not. Nobody is going to rely on a non-authoritative source for a code lookup, and finding a specific code is trivially easy with reference to the linked source. What encyclopaedic purpose does this list fulfil? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, not convinced, sorry. To my mind this meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria; don't forget that our definition of encyclopaedic here includes almanac-style material such as this. As regards the potential for this list to get out of date, most lists of information have the potential to change over time; I don't understand what marks this list out as special. Your objection re: unstated date can be dealt with by the citing of the source as per Wikipedia policy; I find the argument that the arbitrariness of the date of sourcing invalidates this information curious; most information in Wikipedia first appeared on an arbitrary date, to some extent, and if it goes out of date, we update it. I still 'vote' to Keep. SP-KP 18:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If individual SWIFT codes (or a collection of them) are encyclopedic, then would a collection of DUNS numbers be encyclopedic? I don't think so. How about ABN tax ID numbers? Again, most would agree not. What about ABA numbers? Again, most would agree not. This despite the fact that knowing them is key to getting a lot done! Why aren't telephone numbers listed here? See the pattern? These are all numbers by which data or information can be obtained or transmitted, numbers that are subject to change, numbers that by their nature cannot be accurately maintained here, and numbers for which authoritative sources exist elsewhere. I suggest you may want to review WP:ISNOT more closely to see why this info is not encyclopedic before you claim that others are just asserting it isn't encyclopedic, there is, IMHO, sound reasoning behind their assertions. ++Lar 05:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are confusing two issues - whether the information itself is encyclopaedic, and whether presenting it in list form is the best way to include it in Wikipedia. DUNS numbers sound like pretty encyclopaedic things to me, but a page of 2.7 milion of them just wouldn't be practical. The telephone number comparison is just muddying the waters; most telephone numbers belong to non-notable private individuals, so why would we want to list them here? There is most definitely argument by assertion going on in the top part of this page. There is also some more detailed reasoning, true; however, we should be able to audit our deletions back to policy, and just giving reasons which are, or appear to be, plucked from thin air, is just as bad, IMO. SP-KP 10:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no confusion in my mind at all. The existence and usage of SWIFT numbers in unquestionably encyclopaedic, a list of them is not. The difference is the same as that between Yellow Pages and the contents of the Yellow Pages. Bear in mind, too, that the December 3 update (changes and additions only) runs to 16 pages, and the full list is available only by subscription (read: original research). What we have here is a small and random sample of SWIFT numbers allegedly correct as of an unstated date. Verification requires visiting each bank separately or querying the BIC database separately for each entry. We are not a mirror for the SWIFT BIC database, the database is linked from the article on SWIFT codes, and this list is functionally indistinguishable from a telephone directory. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yellow Pages is a good analogy, thanks for bringing it up. I think that not only is the existence of the Yellow Pages encyclopaedic, so is much of its content. How we include that content in Wikipedia is the issue i.e. presentation. I don't see anything in the original research policy which says that material which is best obtained through subscription doesn't count as a valid source. Almost all scientific journals operate on a subscription basis, for instance. Where would we be if we deemed articles based on material in scientific journals to be original research?! SP-KP 16:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think then you may want to consider working to get WP:N and WP:NOT changed (NOT is where it says WP is not a collector of telephone numbers, which I think clearly rules out Yellow Page derived information), rather than arguing for retention of this article. I suspect that this is fairly clear cut to most. ++Lar 16:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misrepresenting my comment about the content of the Yellow Pages. What I said was that much of the information in it is encyclopaedic. I don't believe you doubt that, surely? Yellow Pages is not just a list of telephone numbers; if it was, I'd agree with you. I'm happy with WP:NOT and have no interest in getting it changed, and WP:N is a proposal not yet adopted. Suggesting to people that they don't have a right to respond to a deletion proposal borders on uncivility, so please don't do it. SP-KP 17:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no confusion in my mind either. Individual bank branches are not considered encyclopedic by most (see WP:CORP), so their phone numbers are not either. Nor are lists of their phone numbers. Small banking companies are also not typically considered encylopedic (see WP:CORP again), so their DUNS numbers are not either, despite your assertion, even though DUNS numbers as a topic, are. I feel this proposed deletion (should it happen) is "auditable back to policy" or at least back to guidelines, CORP is just that, a guideline. You may not agree which is fine but hopefully this discussion will help other editors formulate their thinking and comments. NB, I am pretty inclusionist and I STILL think this ought not to be included. Also, were I to stipulate your assertion that SWIFT numbers were encyclopedic I would still argue that your second issue/question: "presenting it in list form is the best way to include it in Wikipedia" is answered "no". This list is large and changes rapidly, and the fragment here is out of date and not amenable to keeping up to date.++Lar 16:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are misrepresenting CORP: It is a proposal, not a policy or guideline. To clarify re: DUNS numbers, I do not have an opinion myself on whether every DUNS number is worthy of inclusion (apologies if I appeared to suggest that I did) - my position is that I trust Wikipedia editors to make sensible decisions about which ones should be included. I am sympathetic to your suggestion that the SWIFT list might be presented in a better way, BTW. SP-KP 17:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These codes can be found from your bank but staff are often know very little and takes much longer to get. (unsigned comment by User:202.7.183.131)
  • They can also be found at [1]. More importantly, the list there is (a) accurate and (b) complete. This is an incomplete and non-authoritative mirror of the codes, and nobody in thier right mind is going to use Wikipedia as a source. The SWIFT database is already linked from the article on SWIFT codes. I don't do WP:POINT as a rule, but would you vote keep on a single page of the telephone directory? That's essentially what this is.- Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_SWIFT_codes&oldid=1079951296"