Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual Property (IP) Share Market


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Intellectual Property (IP) Share Market

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable new concept. One article in The Scientist is not sufficient to establish notability. Edcolins (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability of range of sources available.MarquisCostello (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In view of the work done on the article, i am changing to 'keep'.MarquisCostello (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The two added sources appear to relate to "prediction market" only, not to "Intellectual Property (IP) Share Market", although a quote from the articles is required to verify this. In addition, the link and comparison between "prediction market" and "Intellectual Property (IP) Share Market" appears to be original research. Still not sufficient to establish notability, I am afraid. --Edcolins (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have found and checked the first source (Economics. The promise of prediction markets.). It does not mention intellectual property. This confirms what I wrote above, i.e. the source does not support notability of the subject. --Edcolins (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by Article Author. The first proposed deletion seems entirely premature as the article has not had sufficient time to attract a sufficient number of wiki readers to warrant a broad consensus. The second proposed deletion caused me to research related ideas and helped make the contrast more valid. Additional references have been added.  Thank you! Graceinnes (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No signs that this proposed idea is notable. As for the 3 sources, 1 is a dead link and another is about a completely different concept. 06:28, 25 February 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.