Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SWIFT codes (Second nomination)


 * 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 delete. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

List of SWIFT codes
Previously kept here, but since then some addtional information has been garnered, to wit: the full list of SWIFT codes is between 17,000 and 20,000 entries; the active list (those available for electronic transfers) is over 7,500 and the balance are still valid, they just require a manual completion of the process by the parties involved; assuming these codes listed are all on the "active" list, this is about 4.5% of the total codes. The comment "this list is incomplete, you can help by expanding it" looks, in that context, like a rather lame joke. The December and January updates are both pdfs of over 20 pages, indicating that the list is highly dynamic. Under the circumstances I really cannot see any value in mainatianing a partial mirror of an arbitrary subset of codes when a free web-based authoritative lookup tool is available. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:ISNOT a directory. Thanks/wangi 12:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * An easy Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory and by keeping this we are almost guaranteed to be peddling out of date, unreliable information --kingboyk 13:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT indiscriminate. - brenneman (t) (c)  13:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unmaintainable - incomplete and out-of-date information is misleading. Go to the authoritative online source instead.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  13:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * delete, There's probably a better list of these we can link to in the appropriate article. O bli (Talk) 13:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - list has no encyclopedic value. --Pierremenard 14:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Terence Ong 14:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete good enough reasoning for me. If it needs to be stored on a Wiki, then it should be on Wikisource anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Anyone who is looking up a SWIFT code better go to the source rather than an "encyclopedia anyone can edit" Ruby 14:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. Sliggy 15:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * SWIFT Delete for the same reasons I gave in Articles for deletion/List of SWIFT codes the first time. Unencyclopedic, impossible to keep complete, official sources (which everyone connected with actually using these things KNOWS to use) exist elsewhere, and WP is NOT for general lists of things. (Obli, you are right, there IS a better list and I am pretty sure, last time I checked, it WAS linked from the SWIFT article) ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no hope of (reasonable) accuracy or completeness. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  17:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 17:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Cautious Delete per above. Latinus 18:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 19:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the codes should go in the individual bank articles if anywhere. This is like having a List of bank adresses -- Astrokey44 |talk 19:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Don't suggest that - someone might create it! WP:BEANS Stifle 00:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a list that appears to have been created just for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Pavel Vozenilek 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pointless in view of inaccuracy and free authoritative tool.-- John DO | Speak your mind  12:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listcruft. -Rebelguys2 04:30, 27 January 2006 (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.