Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internment Serial Number

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 was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internment Serial Number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another piece of Guantanamo cruft created by a now-WP:SBAN editor. Fails WP:GNG, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT. The article is a collection of various WP:PASSING and WP:SYNTH. Longhornsg (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing but passing mentions, and anyway, the subject is so narrow I don't see how encyclopedic content could ever be collected. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge The information in here used to be more notable and easier to find, but some of the links have broken over the decades and search engines have rotted. Searching now for "ISN" or "ISN number" yields nothing relevant, but "prisoner ISN number" yields 3 relevant results in a sea of garbage. One is this Wikipedia page. Another is a mirror of this page. "ISN" and "ISN number" are mentioned on other Wikipedia articles without being defined. If you delete this page, the information may become lost. The information is cited and was apparently encyclopedic for the last 18 years. Mentioning that the author was banned seems like an ad hominem fallacy, since they hadn't touched the page in 12 years when they were banned, and were banned for reasons unrelated to anything in this page. 67.4.130.73 (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being online for 18 yrs proves nothing and I don't see how an entire article on a number used in a prison helps anything. They have to track people somehow while in custody. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It does, though. 18 years ago it was notable, and nobody complained that the article existed. Why the change now? Just because the sources have disappeared? Should the article be deleted just because all the non-encyclopedia webpages about it have turned to dust? 67.4.130.73 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It should be deleted if it's non-encyclopedic to start with. Being online for 18 years means nothing, we've worked on notability standards, which were pretty flimsy when Wikipedia started. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An extended DICDEF for what amounts to a prison id system. Not sure why this needs an article. Person gets arrested, is given an id number. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep. Subject meets SIGCOV and is distinct from the prison ID system, which is not managed by US DoD. Identification systems, if well-covered and notable, are fair game for articles. Eelipe (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Links to SIGCOV about ISN specifically, not just passing mentions? None in the article. Longhornsg (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is quite strange and curious type of knowledge. It is worth keeping. Where else would such information. I think it is probably significant. scope_creep^Talk 18:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 14:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of the sources offer significant coverage of the concept of an ISN. Some of them don't even mention it. Clear WP:GNG fail. Astaire (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Since this discussion is still open, here is a quick review of the current sources in the article:

  • Source 1: an 11-page document in which the term ISN only appears in one sentence:Detainees shall be assigned an Internment Serial Number (ISN) as soon as possible after coming under DoD control, normally within 14 days of capture. Not SIGCOV.
  • Source 2: "Internment Serial Number" or "ISN" are not mentioned anywhere in the article.
  • Source 3: "ISN" is listed as one of the table columns, without explaining what it means. Not SIGCOV.
  • Source 4: Broken, and I can't get the Internet Archive to retrieve an archived version. Unfortunate, but no indication of SIGCOV (the sentence in the article for which this is used as a citation is not about ISNs).
  • Source 5: "Internment Serial Number" or "ISN" are not mentioned anywhere in the article.
  • Source 6: Like Source 3, "ISN" is listed as one of the table columns, without explaining what it means. Not SIGCOV.
  • Source 7: "Internment Serial Number" or "ISN" are not mentioned anywhere in the article.
  • Source 8: "Internment Serial Number" or "ISN" are not mentioned anywhere in the article.

  So what we have here is an article based on a single sentence from one document, which clearly fails WP:GNG.

  I also note that many of the arguments for keep are WP:ATA (WP:LOSE, WP:ARTICLEAGE, WP:HARMLESS), and although one person claimed that there is SIGCOV, sources demonstrating this were never presented. Astaire (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2025 (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.