Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InEfficient market hypothesis


 * 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.  Gazi  moff  19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

InEfficient market hypothesis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

original research, essay. Unreferenced. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC) *Week Keep It is indeed a common usage in the financial markets and do throw up a lot of results in google scholar. Although the article does look like WP:OR, I guess it can be developed to a good article, given some time to do so trakesht (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC) trakesht (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research and an attempt to create a neologism antonymically from an established term. Ben Kidwell (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This is a blatant soap box for a neologism. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The information can be just added to efficient markets and do not deserve a separate article :)
 * Delete. Redundant to market failure, a possible redirect candidate but for the malformed title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, original research. Glass  Cobra  17:01, 22 October 2009 (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.