Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Electronic Markets


 * 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 Keep. Agent 86 04:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Iowa Electronic Markets

 * — (View AfD)

Unregulated financial / trading concept spun off from a university project. No sign of importance other than one vague book reference. Prod removed without mention.  Dei zio  talk 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This project is frequently cited in political commentary. NawlinWiki 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, 258 results on Google Scholar. 243 results on Google News Archive. An unreferenced or primarysources tag would have been appropriate and just as easy. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Question how much is it discussed in the book used as a reference? Is it prominently featured or just a passing reference? Is the book independent? Tarinth 23:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply It is discussed primarily in several pages early in the book and referred back to at other points. The book is about all sorts of "collective wisdom" experiments. It is independent and was a NYT best-seller. --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep 506 hits for "Iowa Electronic Markets OR Iowa Political Stock Market" in Factiva news database since 1990 including a significant number of major media source articles which focus on the subject itself (not just a passing reference). For example: 1996 and 2000 articles in Businessweek, 1992/1993 articles in Fortune (magazine); 1992 article in the New York Times (also another (1100 word)NYTimes article in 2000 which appears in Factiva but not in the nytimes archives, oddly); Salon.com in 2004. This plus non-trivial references in google books/a9 and google scholar (e.g.,[seem to be sufficient.Bwithh 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Major prediction market, many articles in many MSM sources (particularly NYT and Salon), and a number of scholarly papers. The article isn't too good, true, but it should've been pretty easy to see that this meets (at the very least) WP:WEB. --Gwern (contribs) 02:42 5 January 2007 (GMT) 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If you use Iowa futures in Google you come up with another thousand or so including CNN, MSNBC andThe Street.com. Its been around a while and is often quoted in comparison with polls.  Montco 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've read a number of articles about this in the general press, it's definitely notable.  Wasted Time R 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dhartung's helpful comments. Tarinth 17:22, 5 January 2007 (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.