Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbitrage Wise (2nd 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 was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrage Wise

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

The previous AfD for this article closed with a very borderline consensus to keep, although there were plenty of votes to delete. Every single source listed is ~~a dead link~~ or a blog. A new Google search returns only blog results, and the name "Arbitrage Wise" is not found in any books I can see. All of the information in this article is unverifiable at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

web.archive results were returning as dead links when I made this nom, however, they are now functioning again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Reuters article mentions ArbWise in one short paragraph, in the context of SL banking in general, and does not discuss the company in detail.
Business Week mentions ArbWise again at the bottom of the article and does not discuss the company in detail.
The second Business Week article mentions ArbWise, this time on the second page, and again, not in detail. In this case it was to quote that the owner had appeared at a panel and given an opinion.
The ABC News link is dead, even in archive form.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think that the topic of the article is sufficiently notable for its own article, however perhaps if there are multiple articles of characters in the game, maybe they should all simply be merged into a list article. CoolieCoolster (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2017 (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.