It's an interesting list, but I can understand Wikipedia not wanting it.

Somebody somewhere is maintaining the official list. If you start a new bank, you can just make up your own Issuer Identification Number and expect to interoperate with the rest of the financial industry. Since someone somewhere has a official list, Wikipedia should publish or link to that official list.

I suppose if the official list is "secret" or unpublished, then the question is trickier. Even in that case, I think the best option would be for Wikipedia to offer an external link to someone compiling or maintaining such a list.

Uh, too late to edit my comment above, but I meant to say, "If you start a new bank, you CAN'T just make up your own Issuer Identification Number and expect to interoperate with the rest of the financial industry."

There was a ridiculous shitshow over MMA articles that dragged on for what seemed like years, a crusade entirely driven by one or two editors who knew how to abuse the AfD process.

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

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...

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.

Is it reasoning or is it mere justification? Hard to tell.

This is the protective wall around the Wikipedia editor's kingdom.

> This list is essentially unsourced and because of the nature of these numbers being unpublished, will always be original research.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.

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.