Deletion of List of Bank Identification Numbers

Comment: passes , , . 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 () either on the bank's website or by phoning the bank directly. The information is neutral (). And it passes (teniously) . 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 Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NOTE)

Comment: unfortunately despite that this is a very useful list, it fails , , and various other guidelines, policies, and essays
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:LC)

Comment: 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  is satisfied enough to keep it around
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSUSEFUL)

Comment: fails , , .  I'm also not really sure what the point of the article is either! --  JediLofty
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOTE||WP:RS)